Karnataka High Court
Sri. D. Mari @ Marappa vs Smt. D. Yashodha on 19 March, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11453
WP No. 25900 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 25900 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. D. MARI @ MARAPPA
S/O LATE DASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO 2505
3RD CROSS, HOSABANDIKERI
MYSURU 570004
PRESENTLY R/AT
ANNAPURNESHWARI TEA HOTEL
NO 1799, FIRST FLOOR,5TH CROSS
80 FEET ROAD, MAHAMANE CIRCLE
KANAKADASA NAGARA, DATTAGALLI
MYSURU 570026.
Digitally signed by 2. SRI DASAPPA @ DASEGOWDA
HEMALATHA A S/O LATE DASAIAH
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT ANANPURNESHWARI HOTEL
NEAR RUBI BAKERY
RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA
MYSURU 570022.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR C S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. D. YASHODHA
W/O LATE C R SIDDARAJU
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11453
WP No. 25900 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO 179
5TH CROSS, TEACHERS LAYOUT
RAJENDRANAGARA, MYSURU 570029
PRESENTLY R/AT YELIGEHUNDI
SARKARI INAM, UTTANAHALLI
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT 570010.
2. SRI V RAVICHANDRA
S/O LATE VENKATESH & SMT CHIKKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. SRI JEEVANKUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATESH & SMT CHIKKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
4. CHIKKAMMA
W/O LATE VENAKTESH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R2 TO R4 ARE R/AT DOOR NO 179
5TH CROSS, TEACHERS LAYOUT
RAJENDRANAGARA, MYSURU-570029
PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO 158
5TH CROSS, TERISIAN COLLEGE ROAD
VIDYANAGARA, MYSURU 570011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 07.06.2024 IN RA NO.
219/2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11453
WP No. 25900 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the respondents before
the Appellate Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed
by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru
in R.A.No.219/2022, whereby the application filed by the
respondents herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
has been allowed and the delay in filing the appeal has
been condoned.
2. The respondents herein filed a suit for partition
and separate possession. The suit came to be dismissed
by judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016. After a lapse
of six years, the appeal has been filed. Along with the
appeal, they have filed an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal. The application is filed for condoning delay of four
NC: 2025:KHC:11453
years and one month, after excluding the period of Covid
Pandemic. The Appellate Court allowed the application.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before
this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the suit has been decreed on 14.07.2016
on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that
the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties.
After a lapse of six years, in the year 2022, the appeal has
been filed challenging the order passed by the trial court
dated 14.07.2016. They have not explained the delay in
filing the appeal. The only reason assigned is that there
was a Covid Pandemic and during that period, there was
an exemption.
(ii) Secondly, the suit has been dismissed in the year
2016. The appeal has to be filed within 30 days, that
means to say, on or before 14.08.2016. The Covid
Pandemic started in the month of December 2019.
NC: 2025:KHC:11453
Therefore, there is no proper explanation for condonation
of delay. In support of his contention, he has also relied
on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY
(SLP © Diary No.48636/2024 dated 29.11.2024 and
contended that each day's delay has to be explained. The
Appellate Court, contrary to the judgment of the Apex
Court, has allowed the application. Hence, he sought for
allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents contended that the respondents are the poor
villagers, the first respondent was suffering from cancer
and has financial constraints, she was unable to file an
appeal immediately. In the meantime, there was Covid
Pandemic. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeal.
Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ papers.
NC: 2025:KHC:11453
6. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein
filed a suit for partition. It is also not in dispute regarding
the relationship of the parties. The suit filed by the
plaintiffs has been dismissed on 14.07.2016 on the ground
that they have failed to prove that the suit schedule
properties are the joint family properties. The appeal was
filed in the year 2022. Along with the appeal, they have
filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condonation of delay of four years one month in
preferring the appeal. To prove the case, the first
respondent herein has been examined as PW1 and marked
eight documents.
7. The specific case of the respondent No.1 herein is
that, they are the villagers and PW1 is a widow, she has
financial constraints to approach the Appellate Court
immediately after the dismissal order passed by the trial
court. She has also deposed that she is suffering from
cancer and she has produced Ex.P1, medical records to
show that she was diagnosed as Ca.Cervix (postoperative
NC: 2025:KHC:11453
+ post External Beam Radiation Therapy + Chemotherapy)
- Stage III A. Ex.P2 reveals that in the year 2023 she
suffered from Uterus and ovaries post op status and she is
taking the treatment. Considering the fact that the
respondents herein are the poor illiterate villagers and first
respondent is the widow and she is suffering from cancer
and considering the financial constraints, the trial court
has rightly condoned the delay.
8. There is no error or illegality in the order passed
by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
