Sri H V Krishna Naik vs Sri T Pushparaj
2025 Latest Caselaw 10784 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri H V Krishna Naik vs Sri T Pushparaj on 27 November, 2025

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:49217
                                                         RSA No. 277 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                             BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                          REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.277 OF 2025 (DEC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI H V KRISHNA NAIK
                   S/O VALYA NAYAK
                   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                   R/O HUNASEBYLE VILLAGE
                   LINGADAHALLI HOBLI
                   TARIKERE TALUK
                   CHIKMAGALURU- 577129

                                                                ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
                    SRI AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M        SRI T PUSHPARAJ
Location: HIGH     S/O LATE H T THIMMAIAH
COURT OF           AGED 59 YEARS
KARNATAKA          R/O CHURCH CIRCLE, OLD TOWN
                   BHADRAVATHI POST
                   SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577301

                                                              ...RESPONDENT

                          THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
                   THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED IN
                   R.A. NO.134/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, (DISTRICT
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:49217
                                             RSA No. 277 of 2025


HC-KAR




AND SESSIONS JUDGE), FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU
AND ETC.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard on the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

on I.A.No.1/2025 wherein there is a delay of 630 days in filing

this appeal.

2. In the affidavit accompanying to the application, it

is specifically stated that the First Appellate Court delivered the

judgment and decree on 15.03.2023 in R.A.No.134/2022 and

the present second appeal is filed on 19.02.2025. The reason

assigned in the application to condone the delay is that the

appellant is an illiterate person and not aware of the legal

procedures involved in filing an appeal and was promptly

unable to take the necessary steps to file the appeal and also

residing in a remote area and faced significant difficulties in

obtaining legal advice and assistance and also suffering from

NC: 2025:KHC:49217

HC-KAR

health issues. Hence, the appellant could not take up the steps

in filing this appeal in time.

3. These are the reasons assigned in the application to

condone the delay of 630 days in filing this appeal. When there

is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal, each day delay has to

be explained but there is no any explanation in the affidavit for

each day delay. The reason assigned is only that the appellant

is an illiterate person and not aware of the legal procedure and

did not get legal advice due to significant difficulties and also

stated that the appellant was suffering from health issues but

no document is placed with regard to health issues is

concerned. When the appellant participated in the proceedings

in O.S.No.42/2016 as well as in R.A.No.134/2022, the appellant

has suffered an order before the Trial Court as well as the First

Appellate Court, not having legal knowledge cannot be

accepted. When such being the case, the reasons assigned in

the affidavit is not acceptable reasons. On perusal of material

on record, it discloses that there is a concurrent finding. When

there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay, I do

not find any ground to condone the delay of 630 days in filing

NC: 2025:KHC:49217

HC-KAR

this appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected.

Consequently, this second appeal is also dismissed.

4. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,

does not survive for consideration and the same stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN