Karnataka High Court
B Balakrishna Rao vs D Krishnamurthy on 10 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45410
RSA No. 288 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.288 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
B BALAKRISHNA RAO
S/O LATE BHEEMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O JOSEPH NAGARA
SHVIAMOGGA - 577201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P N HARISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
D KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O C L DORAISWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M BHADRA COLONY
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577301
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SHIVAMOGG DISTRICT
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.03.2022 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.26/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45410
RSA No. 288 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on
I.A.No.1/2024 wherein there is a delay of 600 days in filing this
second appeal.
2. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn
to by the appellant contending that the appellant could not file
the appeal in time and the same is prevented by bona fide
reasons. There was some delay in getting the information
regarding the judgment. After obtaining the certified copy, he
requested one of his friends to consult some other advocate as
to whether he has to challenge the judgments of both the
Courts before this Court. The said friend, after taking entire
papers, dragged on the matter without consulting any
advocate. Whenever enquiry was made, it was informed to him
that it is under process and he believed the version. Ultimately,
in the month of February 2024, when the respondent tried to
dispossess him on the strength of the dismissal of his appeal
before the First Appellate Court, he seriously insisted for return
of documents from his friend Chandrappa who in turn, after
searching in his house, gave the certified copy of the
NC: 2025:KHC:45410
HC-KAR
judgments and other records which was handed over to him
and thereafter, the appellant made an attempt to file this
second appeal and in the said process, there was a delay in
filing the appeal.
3. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court in O.S.No.286/2018 dated 03.09.2020
and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.26/2020 dated
26.03.2022. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate
Court was dated 26.03.2022. This second appeal is filed on
20.02.2024 i.e., almost 1 year 11 months. The reason assigned
in support of the application is that papers was entrusted to the
friend of the appellant and not to any advocate and the friend
did not get any opinion and dragged the matter without
consulting any advocate.
4. It is not the case of the appellant that not having
any knowledge about the judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court since copy of the order was also taken.
Certified copy of the judgment of the First Appellate Court was
applied on 07.06.2022 and same was received on 24.06.2022.
As per paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the only reason assigned is
NC: 2025:KHC:45410
HC-KAR
that to whom the papers were entrusted, he delayed the same.
Having taken note of reason assigned in the application and
affidavit, it discloses that the appellant having the knowledge of
the case, delay was caused to the extent of 600 days. It is
settled law that each day delay has to be explained. I have
already pointed out that papers are not entrusted to any
advocate but entrusted to a friend and friend did not consult
with the advocate. When such reasoning is given in paragraph
3 of the affidavit, no sufficient cause is shown to condone the
delay of 600 days in filing this second appeal. Hence, I do not
find any ground to condone the said delay.
5. Apart from that on merits also the appellant's father
had only sold the property in favour of one Nanjundaiah who is
the vendor of the respondent/plaintiff that too in the year 1962
and in the year 1986, the said Nanjundaiah sold the property in
favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also in possession from
the date of purchase of the suit schedule property and all the
revenue documents are also stand in the name of plaintiff and
when defendant made an attempt to interfere with possession
of the plaintiff subsequent to the partition which had taken
NC: 2025:KHC:45410
HC-KAR
place in 2015, at that juncture, suit was filed and description of
the property mentioned in the sale deed and also the
boundaries mentioned in the plaint is one and the same. Hence,
I do not find any ground to interfere with concurrent finding of
both the Courts and there are no merits in the appeal also to
invoke Section 100 of CPC.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed.
Consequently, the second appeal also dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
