Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanappa vs Sri Erapa on 16 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20548
RSA No. 1110 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. SRI ANNAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3. SRI PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
4. SRI MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
5. SRI MUNIYAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ALL SONS OF LATE MUNIYAPPA
KARNATAKA R/AT PITCHAGUNTRAHALLI VILLAGE
MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI ERAPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20548
RSA No. 1110 of 2021
HC-KAR
2. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
3. SRI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O VENKATARAMAN BOVI
RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT PITCHAGUNTRAHALLI VILLAGE
MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
4. P G SUDARSHAN
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
S/O P V GOPALA IYENGER
R/O NO.17 16TH CROSS
12TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU 560 055
4(A) SRI MADAN GOPAL S
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE P G SUDARSHAN
4(B) SRI RANGARAJU SUDARSHANA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE P G SUDARSHAN
BOTH R/AT No.17 16TH CROSS
12TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU 560 055
5. VENKATARAGHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O JANAKI S MURTHY
R/AT NO.48, 11TH MAIN
4TH CROSS, SRINAGARA
BENGALURU 560 019
6. VASANTH RAGAVAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O JANAKI S MURTHY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20548
RSA No. 1110 of 2021
HC-KAR
7. S S HARISH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O JANAKI S MURTHY
8. S S VIDYA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O JANAKI S MURTHY
RESPONDENTS No.6 TO 8 ARE
R/AT PADMA BUILDING
8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003
9. A N SRIRANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O A V NARASIMHA RAJU
R/O SURYA BAKERY
S C ROAD
BENGALURU 560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
R3, R7 & R8; NOTICE TO R1, R2 AND PROPOSED
R4(A) & R4(B) - SERVED; V/O DT. 22.01.2025, NOTICE
TO R5, R6 & R9 D/W)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2016 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.74/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, KOLAR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20548
RSA No. 1110 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for consideration of
I.A.No.1/2021 wherein there is a prayer for condonation of
delay of 1129 days in filing the appeal. The reasons stated
in the accompanying application that they ought to have
preferred the said appeal in time however, son of
appellant No.3 by name Sandeep Kumar who was born in
2001 was suffering from chronic heart ailment since his
childhood and he had undergone a surgery while he was of
about five years and thereafter since, 2012 severe health
complications, unfortunately, he died on 20.02.2017 and
also the reason assigned in the affidavit in paragraph 5
that mother also passed away on 07.03.2017 and hence,
the family was under shock. Apart from that the reason
was assigned that when the appeal was pending before
the First Appellate Court, the counsel not informed about
the result of the said appeal and on enquiry also, the
counsel did not give correct details and apart from that
NC: 2025:KHC:20548
HC-KAR
from the end of March 2020, due to COVID-19 pandemic,
lock down had been ordered and only in the month of
October 2020, they could meet their counsel and hence,
there is a delay in filing the appeal and the same may be
condoned.
2. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
Nos.3, 7 and 8 submits that delay is not properly
explained by the counsel for the appellants and each day
delay has to be explained and the counsel would
vehemently contend that the death was taken place in the
year 2017 and the impugned judgment was passed in the
month of November 2016 and hence, there is a clear delay
of five years and same is not properly explained. The
counsel submits that the impugned judgment was passed
in the month of November 2016 but the death was taken
place in the year 2017 and thereafter also not taken any
steps to file the appeal. Unless each day delay has not
been explained satisfactorily and sufficient cause is shown,
the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal
NC: 2025:KHC:20548
HC-KAR
does not arise. The counsel submits that there is a
concurrent finding and hence, question of considering the
same does not arise.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the reasons
assigned in the application and the statement of
objections, it discloses that the impugned judgment was
passed by the First Appellate Court on 22.11.2016 and the
present appeal is filed on 01.10.2021 i.e., almost after five
years and the reasons assigned in the affidavit that son of
appellant No.3 by name Sandeep Kumar who was born in
2001 was suffering from chronic heart ailment since his
childhood and he had undergone a surgery while he was of
about five years and thereafter, he died on 20.02.2017
and also the other reason assigned in the affidavit that
mother also passed away on 07.03.2017 and there is no
explanation for the delay in filing the appeal even after
2017 also but no reasons are given except stating that
there was a COVID pandemic in the month of March 2020
NC: 2025:KHC:20548
HC-KAR
and they could not contact their advocate till October
2020. The said reasons cannot be a ground to condone the
delay of five years in filing the appeal. Unless, each day
delay is explained and sufficient cause is shown to
condone the delay, the question of condoning the delay in
filing the appeal does not arise. When such being the
case, I do not find any grounds to condone the delay of
1129 days in filing this appeal. Hence, I.A.No.1/2021 is
rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
4. In view of dismissal of I.A.No.1/2021 and main
appeal, other I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration
and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
