Karnataka High Court
Smt. Annapurna vs Sri. Umesh on 3 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43979
RSA No. 916 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.916 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANNAPURNA,
W/O B.V. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2. B.V. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE VEERANAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BUKKAPATNA VILLAGE,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK-572129.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR B.N., ADVOCATE)
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. UMESH,
S/O LATE KAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BUKKAPATNA VILLAGE,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK-572129.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.02.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.48/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43979
RSA No. 916 of 2022
HC-KAR
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 16.01.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.118/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KORATAGERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellants.
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The Trial Court granted the relief of specific
performance to execute the sale deed and the said judgment
was passed on 16.01.2015 and the first appeal was filed in
2019 with delay of 4 years, 7 months and 16 days. When the
same was objected by the respondent, appellant No.1 was
examined before the First Appellate Court as P.W.1 and the
reason assigned for condonation of delay is that appellant No.2
was suffering from paralysis since many years and hence was
unable to contact and instruct their counsel to obtain the
certified copy and to prefer the appeal. In support of the said
NC: 2025:KHC:43979
HC-KAR
contention, P.W.1 got examined and produced the prescription
dated 21.06.2018 issued by the doctor and also produced the
medical records dated 21.06.2018 and 22.06.2018 and the
same are marked as Exs.P.10 to 12. The same goes to show
that appellant No.2 was not keeping good health in the month
of June 2018, but the appellants have not produced any
documents to show that appellant No.2 had taken treatment as
an inpatient and hence the ill health of appellant No.2 cannot
be the reason for delay of more than 4 years and 6 months in
filing the appeal and the said observation is made in paragraph
No.8. In paragraph No.9, the First Appellate Court taken note
of when the judgment and decree was passed by the Trial
Court, immediately execution petition was filed and in
execution petition, notice was issued in 2016 itself and the
appellants have appeared through the counsel and filed the
statement of objections in the execution petition, but filed the
appeal only in 2019. An observation is also made that there
was no any impediment for the appellants to prefer the appeal
even immediately after the receipt of the execution notice and
hence, the First Appellate Court did not accept the case of the
appellants.
NC: 2025:KHC:43979
HC-KAR
4. Having perused the records, it is clear that the Trial
Court passed the judgment and decree on 16.01.2015 and
appeal was filed in 2019. The medical records relied upon by
the appellants is of the year 2018 and in between 2015 to
2018, no material is placed before the Court with regard to the
health condition of appellant No.2 is concerned. The fact is that
appellant No.1 was hale and healthy and there was no any
reason preventing appellant No.1 to file the appeal. Apart from
that, the medical records relied upon by the appellants is only a
prescription and no inpatient records are produced and the
same are also of the year 2018 and hence the First Appellate
Court, having taken note of both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, in detail considered the same in
paragraph Nos.8 and 9 and also taken note of the judgments.
While seeking for the condonation of delay of 4 years, 7 months
and 16 days, there must be a sufficient cause and in the
absence of any sufficient cause, the question of condonation of
delay does not arise. Hence, this Court does not find any
ground to condone the inordinate delay and the person who is
lethargic and even having the knowledge about the judgment
and decree and filing of execution petition and also having
NC: 2025:KHC:43979
HC-KAR
received the execution petition notice in 2016 itself, did not
bother to file any appeal till 2019. With regard to the delay is
concerned, no sufficient cause is shown and in the absence of
sufficient cause and unless each day delay is explained by the
appellants, the question of entertaining the appeal does not
arise. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the First
Appellate Court in rejecting the I.A. for condonation of delay
and also consequently dismissing the appeal. Hence, no
grounds are made out to admit the appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
