Karnataka High Court
H N Manjunath vs N Nagaraj on 14 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46927
RSA No. 70 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.70 OF 2025 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. H.N. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE N.M.NARASIMHAIAH
@ GATE NARASIMHAPPA
BUILDING CONTRACTOR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NEAR NANDI VIEW LAYOUT
KUPPALI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M N. NAGARAJ
Location: HIGH SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT. K.S. ARUNA
W/O LATE NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SRI. N. GAGAN
S/O LATE NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. SRI. N. DANUSH
S/O LATE NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46927
RSA No. 70 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALL ARE
R/AT NO.424, KORAMARAPET
NEAR OLD BUS STAND
CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2024 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.87/2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN R.A.NO.87/2023 ON
THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.I FILED UNDER
SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.65/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, CHIKBALLAPUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the
plaintiff/respondent before the Trial Court that an
agreement of sale was executed on 19.11.2012 and
received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- against
Rs.6,00,000/- and thereafter he did not come forward to
NC: 2025:KHC:46927
HC-KAR
execute the sale deed and hence, he issued the legal
notice. Thereafter, he did not comply with the demand and
hence, filed the suit for specific performance. In order to
substantiate his case, he examined himself P.W.1 and also
examined other witness as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.4. Both the witnesses have not cross-examined
and even not lead any evidence before the Trial Court and
hence, the Trial Court considering the material available
on record, granted the relief of specific performance.
Though this judgment was passed on 22.04.2017, an
appeal is filed in the year 2023 after lapse of 6 years 5
months and inordinate delay of 2990 days and already
sale deed also executed in execution No.39/2017 dated
26.07.2019 and also not approached the Court
immediately, no sufficient reason was given and hence,
the First Appellate Court taking into note of inordinate
delay of 6 years 5 months in preferring the appeal and
also having taken note of the fact that already sale deed
was executed in the year 2019 itself and sufficient reasons
NC: 2025:KHC:46927
HC-KAR
are not given to condone the delay and hence, I.A is
dismissed and consequently, appeal also dismissed.
3. In the present second appeal, the learned
counsel for the appellant contend that both the Courts
have committed an error in not considering the material.
The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial
Court has erred in law in holding that plaintiffs was ready
and willing to perform his part of contract and in granting
the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff failed to act
upon by issuing the notice to the defendant before 11
months period from 19.11.2012. Hence, this Court has to
take note of even First Appellate Court not considered the
case on hand and dismissed the appeal only on the ground
that no sufficient grounds to condone the delay.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also on perusal of material available on
record, particularly considering the reasoning of the Trial
Court with regard to the agreement is concerned and also
though defense was taken that it was only a loan
NC: 2025:KHC:46927
HC-KAR
transaction and not the sale transaction, in order to
substantiate the same, neither cross-examined the P.W.1
and P.W.2 nor adduced any evidence and even appeal is
filed belatedly after 6 years 5 months and in the
meanwhile already sale deed was also executed in the
execution proceedings in the year 2019 and when such
material taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit
and frame substantive question of law. The person who
approach the Court has to explain the delay and there is
an inordinate of 6 years 5 months and the same is also not
substantiated. The Apex Court recently held in the
judgment of Shivamma's case reported in 2025 held that
a litigant who slept over for years cannot come and seek
the relief before the Court and Court also while considering
the delay must see the reasons assigned for condonation
of delay and not to consider the matter on merits as held
in paragraph Nos.140, 141 and 142 of the said judgment
and lethargic person cannot be encouraged by condoning
NC: 2025:KHC:46927
HC-KAR
the delay. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain
second appeal when the delay has not been explained. The
First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the same on the
ground of delay.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
