Karnataka High Court
Ramesh vs S Bettegowda on 25 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42269
RSA No. 1351 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1351 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH,
S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. MEENAKSHI,
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O. M.HOSAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. S. BETTEGOWDA,
KARNATAKA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
M. HOSAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHIDANANDA BUILDING,
CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST,
TUMAKURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560073.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42269
RSA No. 1351 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42
RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.11.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.109/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 17.06.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.209/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel for the respondent on I.A.No.1/2020 for
condonation of delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal. The suit
was filed for the relief of mandatory injunction and
consequential relief of permanent injunction and the same was
decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed
before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court.
2. In support of the application, appellant No.1 has
filed an affidavit stating that his wife was suffering from illness
with partial paralysis due to which he was providing Ayurvedic
treatment through nativaidhya and he was very much keen to
NC: 2025:KHC:42269
HC-KAR
provide the treatment rather than concentrating in preferring
an appeal and nobody was there to take care of his wife and
hence the delay was caused. In support of the averments
made in the affidavit, no documentary evidence is placed
before the Court that his wife was suffering from paralysis.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to
the notice of this Court the statement of objections contending
that the delay of 1120 days is not explained properly. The
learned counsel contend that each day's delay has to be
explained and sufficient cause must be shown and no such
sufficient cause is shown and hence the delay cannot be
condoned.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no dispute
with regard to the delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal.
Having perused the material available on record, there is a
concurrent finding. The Trial Court granted the relief and the
same is confirmed in the appeal. On perusal of the averments
made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is
sworn to that his wife was suffering from paralysis. But in
NC: 2025:KHC:42269
HC-KAR
order to substantiate the same, no document is produced
before the Court. It appears that in an ingenious method
affidavit is sworn to that treatment was provided in Ayurveda.
Having considered the contents of the affidavit, no grounds are
made out to condone the delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal
and hence I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed. Consequently, the
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
