Karnataka High Court
Sri Sanna Halappa vs Sri P N Hanumanthappa on 7 June, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19814
RSA No. 729 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.729 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SANNA HALAPPA,
S/O SRI PARASHURAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT NALLUR VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2. SRI RUDRAPPA,
S/O SRI PARASHURAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT NALLUR VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANTS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH (BY SMT. KAVERAMMA K.A., ADVOCATE FOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI P.N. HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NALLUR VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI UMESH MULIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19814
RSA No. 729 of 2018
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2014
PASSED IN R.A.NO.77/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.07.2011
PASSED IN O.S.NO.207/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel for the respondent on I.A.No.1/2018 for
condonation of delay of 1089 days in filing the appeal.
2. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying
the application is that the appellant No.1 due to old age was
suffering from severe illness i.e., generalized muscle weakness
since from past 44 years and he was bedridden and unable to
attend to day to day activities and for the said bonafide reasons,
could not contact his counsel for preferring the above appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed the
statement of objections contending that the inordinate delay of
1089 days in filing the appeal is not explained. The learned
counsel contend that the appeal filed by the appellants was
dismissed in 2014 and the same has been challenged in 2018
and delay of four years has not been explained. The learned
NC: 2024:KHC:19814
counsel submits that the appellant No.1 claims that he is aged
about 71 years old and contend that from 44 years he is
suffering from illness and with that illness only he contested the
matter and explanation offered by the appellant No.1 for the
delay cannot be accepted. The learned counsel submits that
Execution Petition No.25/2015 is filed and the judgment debtor
No.2/appellant No.2 appeared before the Court through his
counsel on 02.11.2015. Thereafter, notice was duly served and
the judgment debtor No.1 did not appear before the Court and
remained absent and warrant has been issued and possession
has been taken in 2017 itself and now cannot contend that due
to age old illness could not contact the advocate.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the
judgment was passed in 2014 and thereafter in 2015, execution
petition was filed. The learned counsel for the respondent has
produced the copy of the order sheet passed in Execution
Petition No.25/2015 for having served the notice and he did not
contest the matter in execution petition. The possession was
ordered and possession was taken in 2016 itself and the same
was reported on 16.12.2017 and the petition was closed on the
very same day having taken the possession. The present appeal
NC: 2024:KHC:19814
is filed in March 2018 after disposal of the execution petition and
each day delay has not been explained.
5. Having taken note of the material available on
record, immediately after the pronouncement of judgment in
2015 itself the execution petition was filed and process is
completed in 2017 itself. When such being the case, the
appellants ought to have explained the delay of 1089 days in
filing the appeal. The reasons stated is very bald as contended
by the learned counsel for the respondent and it is only stated
that due to old age ailments, the appellants could not contact
his advocate. The fact is that the execution petition was filed
and possession was taken in terms of the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court in 2017. When such being the case, I do not
find any ground to condone the delay of 1089 days in filing the
appeal. It is held by the Apex Court that each day delay has to
be explained. When no satisfactory reasons are assigned for
each day delay, the question of condoning the delay of 1089
days in filing the appeal does not arise. The copy of the
possession taken in execution proceedings is placed along with
the statement of objections by the learned counsel for the
respondent. When such being the material on record, I do not
find any ground to condone the delay and the appellants cannot
NC: 2024:KHC:19814
approach the Court on their whims and fancies after four years.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and
I.A.No.1/2018 is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
