Karnataka High Court
Sri R Srinivas vs Sri Mahadevu on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 967 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI R SRINIVAS
S/O LATE H.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NOW RESIDING AT NO.101,
SANKALP GALAXY, VIVEKANDNA ROAD,
YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE - 570 021
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MAHADEVU
S/O LATE KULLAMANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
Digitally signed RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
by DEVIKA M BELAGOLA HOBLI,
Location: HIGH SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
2. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O MAHADEVU,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI. NAGESH
S/O MAHADEVU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
4. SMT. ARUNI
W/O NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
5. SRI. SURESH
S/O MAHADEVU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
6. SRI. NARAYANA
S/O LATE DDYAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
7. SMT. LEELAVATHI
W/O NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE NINGANNA.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
9. SRI. MANJU
S/O LATE NINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
10. SMT. MAADEVI
D/O LATE NINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
11. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
12. SRI JAGADEESHA
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
13. SMT. MEENAKSHI
W/O JAGADEESHA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
14. SMT. SAVITA
D/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
15. SMT. SUMATI
W/O LATE VISHAKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
16. SRI. NANJUNDA
S/O LATE KULLAMANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
17. SMT. PREMA
W/O NANJUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
18. SMT. SWETHA
D/O NANJUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
19. SMT. POORNIMA
D/O NANJUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
20. SRI. VISHWA
SO NANJUNDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
21. SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O LATE J. SHASHIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANTAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606.
22. SRI. KARUN
S/O LATE J. SHASHIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106
23. SRI. PRABHAS
S/O LATE J. SHASHIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106
24. SMT. SAROJAMMA
D/O LATE H.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.28,
WEASLEY ROAD,
TILAKNAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 021
25. SMT. KAMALAMMA
D/O LATE H.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.28,
WEASLEY ROAD,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
TILAKNAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 021
26. SMT. MANJULAMMA
D/O LATE H.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.28,
WEASLEY ROAD,
TILAKNAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 021
27. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE H.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.28,
WEASLEY ROAD,
TILAKNAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 021
28. SMT. NIRMALA
D/O LATE H.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.28,
WEASLEY ROAD,
TILAKNAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 021
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.03.2022 PASSED IN RA
NO.5039/2015 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) .,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.68/2011
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
RSA No. 967 of 2025
HC-KAR
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SRIRANGAPATNA.
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 the learned counsel for the appellant.
There is a delay of 1103 days in filing this appeal.
2. The appellant along with other plaintiffs have filed
O.S.No.68/2011 for the relief of declaration and possession and
the suit was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2015 and
thereafter being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an
appeal is filed in RA No.5039/2015 and the same was dismissed
on 02.03.2022. The present appeal is filed on 20.06.2025. In
support of delay of 1103 days delay, an application is filed to
condone the delay. In support of the application, an affidavit is
sworn to.
3. In para 3 of the affidavit, it is stated that he was
having severe health-related complications from the year 2021.
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
HC-KAR
He has suffered spinal stenosis and diabetes mellitus, for which
he had to undergo surgery at Columbia Hospital on 25.09.2021
and he was also bed ridden thereafter. Though in the affidavit it
is stated that a copy of the discharge summary is annexed with
this affidavit, but the same is not annexed.
4. However, during the course of arguments, the
counsel brought to notice of this court the discharge summary.
The discharge summary discloses that the he was discharged in
2021 and appeal was dismissed on 02.03.2022. The other
reason mentioned in the affidavit is that the same was not
informed to the appellant, but the fact is that there were other
6 appellants in the appeal and there are other 6 plaintiffs in the
original suit and it appears in an ingenious method, affidavit is
drafted only with regard to mentioning the ailment in the
respect of the present appellant is concerned and also made
the other plaintiffs as well as appellants in the appeal as
respondents. Having adopted even an ingenious method,
nothing is placed on record before the court that after he was
discharged in 2021, no documents are placed before this court
to show that he was subjected to any further treatment in the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
HC-KAR
hospital as an inpatient. But the fact is that he was discharged
in 2021 itself.
5. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged and also there is a concurrent finding of dismissal of suit
as well as confirmation made by the first appellate court and
even though it is stated that he was not having the knowledge
and he was unable to contact his Advocate consequent upon he
underwent surgery in 2021, what prevented from even
contacting the Advocate over the phone or any other mode,
nothing is explained. But only he says that he came to know
about the same in 2024 and hence, the person who is lethargic
and also not very diligent in enquiring about the appeal and
also when the other appellants were also there and nothing is
stated in the affidavit with regard to any other appellants and
what prevented them others to enquire with the Advocate is
also nothing is stated in the affidavit and for the reasons stated
in the application affidavit the same is not satisfactory and
while condoning the delay of 1103 days, there must be a
sufficient cause to condone the delay and each day delay has to
be explained and having considered the averments made in the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44837
HC-KAR
affidavit, not made out any sufficient cause to condone the
delay and hence no grounds to condone the delay of 1103 days
in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in SHIVAMMA
(DEAD) BY LRS., VS. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND
OTHERS1 and made it clear that a lethargic person cannot be
entertained when there was an inordinate delay in approaching
the court and hence, I.A. is dismissed. Consequently appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SS
CT: BHK
2025 SCC Online SC 1969
