Karnataka High Court
Town Municipal Council Sedam vs Youth Club on 4 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1915
RSA No. 200296 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200296 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SEDAM
THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER,
SEDAM-585222.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI J. ADV. FOR
SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
YOUTH CLUBTHROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
VENKATREDDY S/O AYALREDDY PATIL,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally signed R/O. SEDAM, TQ. SEDAM,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF THE CPC, PRYAING TO
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SEDAM IN R.A. NO.15/2015 DATED
08.11.2016 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AT SEDAM IN O.S. NO.14/2013
DATED 09.02.2015.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1915
RSA No. 200296 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed the application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1143 days
in preferring the appeal, which is supported by the
affidavit, wherein it is stated that the above appeal is filed
being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
08.11.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sedam in
R.A.No.15/2015, by allowing the appeal and setting aside
the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015 passed in
O.S.No.14/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sedam. It is
submitted that after passing the judgment and decree by
the First Appellate Court, the legal opinion was sought by
the learned counsel and after obtaining the legal opinion
the file was sent to the approval of higher authority. It is
further submitted that the said filed was came to be
approved in the third week of March, 2020 and thereafter
the file was entrusted to the counsel to prefer the appeal,
it was said that due to Covid-19 pandemic, it could not be
filed and thereafter again approached in the second week
of April and the appeal came to be filed immediately
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1915
without further delay. Hence, the delay is caused and the
delay is not intentional one. If the delay is not condoned,
it will cause loss to the Government, if condoned no loss or
harm will be caused to the other side. On these grounds,
sought for allowing of the appeal by condoning the delay.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
re-iterated the grounds urged in the affidavit of the
appellant.
3. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for appellant, the following points would arise for
consideration:
(a) Whether the appellant has made out a
sufficient cause to condone the delay of
1134 days in preferring this appeal?
(b) What order?
4. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1915
Point No.2: As per final order.
Regarding point No.1:
5. I have examined the material placed before this
Court. The plaintiff-Youth Club through its President had
filed a suit against the present appellant in
O.S.No.14/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sedam. The
suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree, the plaintiff/appellant had filed
appeal in R.A.No.15/2015 before the Senior Civil Judge at
Sedam and in that appeal, the present appellant-Town
Municipal Council, Sedam appeared through its counsel.
After hearing both sides, the First Appellate Court allowed
the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff in
O.S.No.14/2013. After lapse of more than 4 years five
months and 15 days, the present appeal is preferred.
6. A perusal of the calculation made by the office
reveals that the total delay of number of days in filing the
appeal is 1537 days excluding 394 days of Covid-19
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1915
period. Hence, the delay in filing this appeal is 1143 days.
The copy of the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court reveals that the appellant had applied for
certified copy on 09.03.2021 and the same was delivered
on the same day itself. After passing the judgment and
decree in the year 2016, whether the appellant had filed
an application for certified copy has not been disclosed by
the appellant. In this regard, the appellant has not stated
any reasons in the affidavit. In the affidavit filed on behalf
of the appellant Sri.Satish S/o; Namdev Gudde, Chief
Officer, Sedam, wherein he has stated that after passing
the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court the
legal opinion was sought for by the Town Municipal Council
and after getting the legal opinion, the file was sent for
approval of the higher authority. The contents of the
affidavit reveals that the appellant has obtained certified
copy of the judgment soon after passing the judgment and
decree of the First Appellate Court, on which date the
appellant had sent the file for legal opinion by the higher
authority which has not been disclosed by the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1915
The copy of the corresponding letter is also not produced
by the appellant. The appellant being the statutory body
has to maintain all the relevant documents as
contemplated under relevant Act and Rules. However, the
appellant has not placed the same before this Court for the
reasons best known to the appellant.
7. Now, after lapse of more than four years, the
appellant has filed this appeal without sufficient cause to
condone the inordinate delay in preferring this appeal.
Therefore, viewed from any angle, I do not find any
ground to allow this application. Hence, I answer point
No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed
to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1915
ORDER
IA.No.1/2021 is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal also stands
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of IA.No.1/2021,
pending IA's if any does not survive for
consideration.
A copy of this order shall be sent to
respondent by speed post.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
