Karnataka High Court
R Girish Kumar vs Smt. Yashoda on 14 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46600
RSA No. 1228 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1228 OF 2024 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
R GIRISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.S.RAJU,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 242, 1ST MAIN,
2ND STAGE, BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE,
GOKULAM, MYSORE - 2
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. YASHODA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
Digitally W/O LATE K.S. RAJU
signed by
SUNITHA K S 2. SMT. MOHAN KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Location:
D/O LATE K.S. RAJU
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 3. KUM. ANJALI R.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O LATE K.S.RAJU
RESPONDENT No.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT DOOR NO. 225, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE,
GOKULAM, V.V. MOHALLA,
MYSORE - 2
4. SMT. K. ANASUYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46600
RSA No. 1228 of 2024
W/O K. VENKATESH
R/AT DOOR No. 77, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA
2ND STAGE, MAHAJANA LAYOUT
NEAR SRI BYRAWESHWARA TEMPLE
HEBBAL LAYOUT, MYSURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4, VK FILED NOTICE
NOT YET ORDERED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 1 IN RA
NO.34/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
REJECTING THE IA NO. 1 FILED U/S. 5 OF LIMITATION ACT
AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.11.2021 PASSED IN OS NO. 665/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the
order on I.A.No.1/2024 dated 08.04.2024 passed in
R.A.No.34/2024 by III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Mysore and judgment and decree dated
25.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.147/2016 passed by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru.
NC: 2024:KHC:46600
2. For convenience parties are referred to as per
their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is
defendant No.4, respondent No.4 is plaintiff, respondents
No.1 to 3 are defendants No.1 to 3.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this
appeal are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession.
The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties
decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared that the
plaintiff is the owner of 'A' schedule property and
defendants are directed to hand over the plaint 'B'
schedule property within three months. The defendants
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.147/2016 have preferred appeal in
R.A.No.34/2024 and application in I.A.No.1/2024 under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 815
days in preferring the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:46600
4. The Appellate Court rejected I.A.No.1/2024 and
consequently dismissed the appeal. The defendants
aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.1/2024 and dismissal of
appeal in R.A.No.34/2024 and judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.147/2016 have filed this regular second
appeal.
5. After arguing the matter for some time, learned
counsel for the appellant filed an affidavit wherein, the
appellant had prayed to grant one year time for handing
over of the premises, with liberty to prosecute Regular
Appeal in 162/2024 which is pending on the file of III
Additional District Judge, Mysore, insofar as judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.665/2013 dated 25.11.2021
passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at
Mysore in respect of the suit schedule property, liberty be
reserved in favour of the appellant to put-forth his case in
R.A.No.162/2024 by recording the undertaking.
6. The affidavit of undertaking of the appellant is
taken on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:46600
7. As the appellant has undertaken to vacate the
premises within one year, with liberty to prosecute and
urge all the grounds in pending R.A.No.162/2024, nothing
survives for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed, however, liberty is
reserved in favour of the appellant to urge all the grounds
in pending R.A.No.162/2024.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
BVK
