Karnataka High Court
Smt Badadimane Sharadamma vs Smt Halavva W/O. Devendrappa on 21 February, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4265
WP No. 101180 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 101180 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BADADIMANE SHARADAMMA,
W/O. NAGAPPA AND D/O. GODEVVA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. TARANAGAR, SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-581 119.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. HALAVVA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. KALASAPURA VILLAGE,
HUNINAHADAGALI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583 216.
2. SMT. MANJAVVA W/O. TUMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. HARAKANALU,
Digitally
signed by
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583131.
3. LAKKAPPA S/O. BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. HARAKANALU,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583131.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH (V/O DATED
21/02/24)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4265
WP No. 101180 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 03-02-2024
PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI, IN RA
NO. 18/2022 ON IA NO. I VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS I.A. NO. 1 FILED UNDER SEC 5 OF LIMITATION ACT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUTIY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to
quash the Order dated: 03-02-2024 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Harapanahalli, in RA No. 18/2022 on IA No. I
vide Annexure-G and consequently dismiss
I.A. No. 1 filed under Sec 5 of Limitation Act
in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Any other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deemes fit
for the facts and circumstances may please
be granted.
2. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of
proposed orders to be passed.
3. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.225/2013
seeking for declaration and delivery of possession in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4265
respect of suit schedule properties. The said suit
having been decreed and execution case had been
filed by the petitioner, it is at that time the
respondents filed R.A.No.18/2022 challenging the
decree in O.S.No.225/2013. In the said regular
appeal, an application in I.A.No.1 for condonation of
delay of more than 1000 days having been filed, it
was allowed. It is challenging the said order the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is
that there is no particular reason or justification which
has been made out in the application for condonation
of delay of more than 1000 days in filing the regular
first appeal and the I-Appellate Court ought not to
have condoned the delay.
5. A perusal of the order passed by the I-Appellate Court
indicates that the I-Appellate Court, after considering
various judgments, has come to the conclusion that
the appellants were rustic villagers, they are suffering
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4265
from financial constraint, did not know the legal
proceedings, they ought not to be deprived of their
right of first appeal, has condoned the delay by
imposing cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the
respondent therein. The said order being reasoned of
nearly of 23 pages by considering various decisions
applicable, there is no infirmity in the said order
requiring interference at the hands of this Court.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
6. In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
