Karnataka High Court
Sri.Mukappa S/O Sangappa Barki vs Sri.Amanulla S/O Imamsab Somasagar on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597
RSA No. 100154 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100154 OF 2022 (SP-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUKAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
SRI. NEELAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI,
DIED ON 05-05-2015.
2. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. LATE NEELAPPA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
3. SRI. DURGAMMA D/O. LATE NEELAPPA
W/O. MALATESH,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
4. SRI. VEERESH S/O. LATE NEELAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location:
5. SMT. SUMEETRA D/O. LATE NEELAPPA
HIGH
MOHANKUMAR COURT OF
W/O. NAGARAJ BARKI,
B SHELAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
BENCH
6. SRI. UMESH S/O. LATE NEELAPPA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SHANKARAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. SMT. BASAVANNEVVA W/O. SANGAPPA BARKI,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597
RSA No. 100154 of 2022
ALL ARE R/O. KAGINELLI,
TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. AMANULLA S/O. IMAMSAB SOMASAGAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAGINELLI, TQ: BYADGI,
DIST: HAVERI-581106.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.P. MURARI, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.02.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
28.08.2012 IN O.S. NO.60/2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE (SR. DN.) ITINERATE COURT, BYADGI, AND DISMISS THE
SUIT O.S.NO.60/2007, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL WITH
COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant
No.1(A), challenging the judgment and decree dated
11.02.2015 passed in RA No.82/2012 on the file of II
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597
Additional District Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur),
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate
Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree dated 28.08.2012 passed in OS
No.60/2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Itinerate
Court, Byadagi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial
Court'), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. In this appeal, as there is a delay of 2035 days
in filing the appeal, the appellants have filed IA
No.1/2020, seeking condonation of delay in filing the
appeal and also I.A.No.1/2024, seeking permission to
prosecute the appeal.
4. Having taken note of the reasons assigned by
the appellants herein at paragraph No.2 of the affidavit
accompanying with I.A.No.1/2020, I am of the view that,
the reasons assigned by the appellants cannot be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597
considered as there is no sufficient cause and the
appellants were not diligent in prosecuting the case.
5. As there is a delay of nearly 7 years in filing the
appeal, the judgment referred by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in the case of Delhi
Development Authority Vs. Jagan Singh1, and the
issue involved in the said judgment is pertaining to
acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, however, in the present case the rights of the
parties is crystallized by both the Courts below in a suit for
specific performance and in that view of the matter,
following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union
Of India2, wherein it is stated that, if the cause shown is
insufficient, the delay cannot be condoned.
6. It is also to be noted that, it is not the length of
delay but the cause of delay has to be considered by
considering the application under Section 5 of the
2023 AIAR (Civil) 765
(2025) 1 SCC 625
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597
Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State Of Nagaland Vs. Lipok & Others3, I am of the
view that, the reasons assigned by the appellants herein
at paragraph No.2 of the affidavit accompanying with
I.A.No.1/2020, cannot be accepted for condoning the
delay nearly 7 years in filing the appeal.
7. Hence, appeal is dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM / CT-MCK
(2005) 5 SCC 752
