Karnataka High Court
Rasheedda Begum D/O Syed Riyaz Ahmad vs The Assistant General Manager And Ors on 4 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:123
RSA No. 200138 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. 200138 OF 2021 (INJ-)
BETWEEN:
RASHEEDDA BEGUM W/O SYED RIYAZ AHMAD,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. K.E.B. COLONY, SEDAM-58522,
TQ, SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SYED FAYAZUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
K.S.S.I.D.C.,
OPP. DEPOT NO.1, JEWARGI CROSS,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN KSSIDC OPPOSITE TO DEPOT No1,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF JEWARGI CROSS,
KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585102.
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
K.S.S.I.D.C. DEPOT NO.1, JEWARGI CROSS,
KALABURAGI-585102.
4. RAJSHEKHAR S/O SHARANAPPA NEELANGI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
POLICE PATIL GALLI, SEDAM-58522,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.BHIMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1 TO R3-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:123
RSA No. 200138 of 2021
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.13/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SEDAM, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.115/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE 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.13 of 2016 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Sedam, confirming the judgment and decree dated
passed in OS.No.115 of 2012 on the file of the Civil Judge
and JMFC 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.
3. Reasons setout for condonation of delay at paragraph
2 of the affidavit reads as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:123
"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
the deponent, with cogent reasons and same has to be
accepted, and further, same satisfies the ingredients under
NC: 2024:KHC-K:123
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
