Karnataka High Court
Rasheedda Begum D/O Syed Riyaz Ahmad vs Sanganna S/O Ningappa Madenoor And Ors on 4 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:122
RSA No. 200137 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200137 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
RASHEEDDA BEGUM D/O SYED RIYAZ AHMED,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. K.E.B. COLONY, SEDAM-58522,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SYED FAYAZUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANGANNA S/O NINGAPPA MADENOOR,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O. NOOLAGALLI, SEDAM-58522,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN 2. SHANKAR BIRADAR S/O BASAWANTHRAO,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 50 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O.LNT ROAD, SEDAM-585222,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
3. ABUBAKAR SIDDIQUI
S/O SHAMSHUZAMA SIDDIQUI,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O. SEDAM-585222,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA INJALIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:122
RSA No. 200137 of 2021
NOTICE TO R2-SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD.12.07.2023)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2015 DATED 28.03.2017
BY THE CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION SEDAM AND
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.157/2008 DATED
09.03.2015 BY CIVIL JUDGE AT SEDAM.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the
judgment and decree dated 28.03.2017 passed in
RA.No.20 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Sedam, confirming the judgment and decree dated
passed in OS.No.157 of 2008 on the file of the Civil Judge
at Sedam, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Since, there is delay of 993 days in filing the appeal,
the appellant has filed IA No.3 of 2023, seeking
condonation of delay. Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant on IA No.3 of 2023.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:122
3. Reasons setout for condonation of delay at paragraph
2 of the affidavit reads as under:
"That due to the continuous ill health because of the
bones problem in her legs, the deponent after passing
of the judgment by the appellant Court was not
contacted her counsel and not preferred the appeal after
some recovery she contacted her counsel in the month
of February 2020 and due to the covid 19 she was not
able to file the appeal and after that, in the years 2021
when courts start functioning partially then the
deponent collected the documents and filed the present
appeal."
4. Perusal of the reasons stated in the paragraph 2 of
the affidavit would indicate that the appellant is having ill
health, however, no document has been produced to
establish the said aspect. In that view of the matter, as
the impugned judgment and decree is passed by the First
Appellate Court on 28.03.2017, I am of the view that, the
sufficient reason has not been assigned by the appellant to
condone the inordinate delay of 993 days in filing the
appeal. It well settled principle in law that, it is not the
length of the delay but the cause of delay has to be
considered. If the cause of delay is properly explained by
NC: 2024:KHC-K:122
the deponent, with cogent reasons and same has to be
accepted and further same has to satisfy the ingredients
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Perusal of the
paragraph 2 of the affidavit as extracted above is without
any cogent records. Therefore, I am of the view that, the
application in IA No.3 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed as
there is inordinate delay of 993 days in filing the appeal
and no satisfactory explanation is offered by the appellant.
Accordingly, IA No.3 of 2023 is dismissed. Consequently,
the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
