Karnataka High Court
Shri Bandappa vs Smt Lakshmi on 6 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19326
RSA No. 299 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.299 OF 2023 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SHRI BANDAPPA
S/O SHAMBE GOWDA
AGED 52 YEARS
R/AT D.NO.2576, 4TH CROSS,
BEHIND BASAVAIAHANA GARADI
K G KOPPAL
MYSURU 570009
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMI
Digitally signed W/O LATE C KUMAR
by DEVIKA M AGED 52 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT D No.46/5(A)
COURT OF 2ND CROSS, K G KOPPAL
KARNATAKA MYSURU 570009
2. SRI RACHAPPAJI @ RAJU
S/O LATE C KUMAR
AGED 29 YEARS
R/A D. No.46/5(A)
2ND CROSS, K G KOPPAL
MYSURU 570009
3. SMT. SHILPA
D/O LATE C KUMAR
AGED 32 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19326
RSA No. 299 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/A D. No.46/5(A)
2ND CROSS, K G KOPPAL
MYSURU 570009
...RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS SERVED- UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2017
PASSED IN RA.No.52/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. This matter is listed for consideration of
I.A.No.1/2023 which is filed for condonation of delay of
1166 days in filing the appeal. In support of this
application, an affidavit is sworn to stating that the
appellant was unwell and was not able to approach the
advocate on several hearing dates. That apart, the
appellant was put to immense difficulties and approached
the advocate on record and informed that there was a
NC: 2025:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
judgment. However, could not go the office and appraise
him. Thereafter, the appellant requested the advocate on
record to secure the certified copy of the judgment at the
instance of the children who said that case is dismissed
and the property is being put to difficulties. It is also
stated that certified copy was applied on 15.11.2022 and
the same was delivered on 23.12.2022 and even after
obtaining the certified copy, since, the advocate was busy,
could not able to prepare the appeal in time and hence,
there is a substantial cause to urge before this Court and
prayed to condone the delay.
2. Having considered the affidavit filed by the
appellant is discloses that though it is stated that the
appellant was unwell, in support of the said contention, no
document is placed before the Court. Admittedly, the
appeal was dismissed in the month of September 2017
and the present appeal is filed in the year 2023. Having
considered the reasons assigned in the affidavit, though it
is contended that informed by the children and secured
NC: 2025:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
the certified copy, the said affidavit is very bald and
nothing is stated with regard to the fact that when the
appellant came to know about the judgment because it is
only stated that thereafter approached the advocate on
record but when the appellant approached the advocate on
record also not stated in the affidavit and an omnibus
statement is made that came to know about the same and
due to unwell, he could not approach the advocate and
how long, the appellant was unwell also not stated in the
affidavit. Inspite of after getting the certified copy also,
not pursued immediately to file the appeal. On perusal of
the affidavit, it discloses that no proper reasons are
assigned to condone the delay.
3. No doubt, the counsel relied upon the judgment
of the Apex Court reported in 2025 LIVELAW (SC) 339
in the case of INDER SINGH vs THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH wherein the Apex Court held that
although delay cannot be condoned without sufficient
cause, the case's merit cannot be discarded solely on the
NC: 2025:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
technical grounds of limitation. A liberal approach should
be taken in condoning the delays when the limitation
ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs
substantial justice.
4. No dispute with regard to the principles laid
down in the above judgment wherein the Apex Court
taken note of delay of two years. In the case on hand,
judgment was delivered in the year 2017 and the present
appeal is filed in the year 2023 and hence, there is a delay
of 1166 days even after deducting the period of COVID.
When such being the case, to condone the delay, there is
no sufficient cause and having read the affidavit, this
Court also made an observation that affidavit is also very
bald since nothing is discussed that when the appellant
came to know about the dismissal of the appeal and apart
from that in the case on hand, suit is filed for the relief of
specific performance and suit was dismissed answering
point Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the very execution of the
agreement and also the payment of sale consideration.
NC: 2025:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
The appellate Court also re-appreciated the material on
record and concurred the judgment of the Trial Court in
coming to the conclusion that the very sale transaction
was not proved. When such being the case, I do not find
any ground to condone the delay of 1166 days in filing the
appeal. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the
case and also there is an inordinate delay and the same
has not been explained by placing documentary evidence
and affidavit is very bald. Hence, I.A.No.1/2023 is liable
to be dismissed. Consequently, this RSA is also dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if
any, does not survive for consideration and the same
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
