Karnataka High Court
Kumari Kalavathi vs Sarojamma on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22311
WP No. 18227 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 18227 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARI KALAVATHI
D/O LATE NAGARATHNAMMA
AND VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. MANJULA,
W/O NAGESH,
D/O LATE NAGARATHNAMMA
AND VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3. PARTHASARATHI,
S/O LATE NAGARATHANAMMA
Digitally signed AND VENKATAPPA,
by SHARMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ANAND CHAYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.1275,
KARNATAKA
VIJAYALAKSHMI COLONY,
NEAR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
KADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560 067.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. P.C. VINITHA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22311
WP No. 18227 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SAROJAMMA,
W/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. RATHNAMMA,
D/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. YARREGOWDA,
S/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
4. SONNAMURTHY YARAPPA
S/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT
BOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 05.06.2025 PASSED BY THE I
ADJ, BRD ON I.A.NO.1/2017 FILED BY RESPONDENT IN
R.A.NO. 182/2017 AND REJECT THE APPLICATION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22311
WP No. 18227 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioners are assailing the
order dated 05.06.2025 in R.A.No.182/2017 on the file of I
Addl. Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The facts in nutshell are that, the petitioners
herein have filed suit in O.S.No.644/2010 before the II
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, seeking
1/3rd share in respect of the suit schedule properties. The
suit came to be decreed on 02.12.2014. Feeling aggrieved
by the same, the respondents herein have filed
R.A.No.182/2017 before the First Appellate Court. Since
there is a delay in approaching the First Appellate Court,
the respondents herein have filed I.A.No.1 under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 1090
days in filing the appeal. The First Appellate Court after
considering the material on record vide order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:22311
HC-KAR
05.06.2025 allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the respondents
herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have
presented this writ petition.
4. Smt. P.C. Vinitha, learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that, the First Appellate Court has
committed an error in condoning the inordinate delay of
1090 days in filing the appeal and the reasons assigned by
the respondents in I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, is to the effect that they were illiterate and
they were unable to understand the proceedings and
accordingly it is submitted that the reasons assigned by
the First Appellate Court for condoning the inordinate
delay in filing the appeal and allowing I.A.1 in
R.A.No.182/2017, is contrary to law.
5. Having taken note of the submission made by
learned counsel for the parties and after carefully
NC: 2025:KHC:22311
HC-KAR
examining the writ papers, it is not in dispute that the
petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.644/2010 on the file
of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District
seeking 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and
undisputedly the suit is one for partition and separate
possession in respect of the subject properties.
6. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on
record, the respondents having suffered with judgment
and decree before the trial court have preferred the appeal
under Section 96 of CPC in RA.No.182/2017. Since there
is a delay of 1090 days in filing the appeal, the
respondents herein have filed I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. Taking into consideration the reasons
assigned by the respondents in the affidavit accompanying
the application in I.A.No.1, the First Appellate Court has
allowed the application by imposing cost of Rs.6,000/-. In
that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact
that the suit is one which is for partition and separate
NC: 2025:KHC:22311
HC-KAR
possession in respect of the subject land and further the
property rights are required to be considered in the
appeal, I do not find merit in the writ petition. In view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others - (2005)3
SCC 752 and the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others
- 2024 SCC Online SC 551, I am of the view that if
sufficient reasons have been assigned in the affidavit
accompanying the application with regard to condoning
the delay in filing the appeal or the revision, the
jurisdictional court should be liberal and that too, when
rights of the parties are agitated in respect of the subject
matter. In that view of the matter, while considering the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is not
the length of delay, but the cause of delay has to be
considered and as such, the First Appellate Court having
taken note of the fact and reasons assigned in the affidavit
accompanying the application rightly allowed I.A.No.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC:22311
HC-KAR
further imposed cost of Rs.6,000/-. In that view of the
matter, I am declined to interfere with the writ petition.
For the above reasons, writ petition is dismissed. The
First Appellate Court is requested to expedite the hearing.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SD
CT: BHK
