Karnataka High Court
Sri. B M Narayanaswamy vs Sri. Gangulappa on 10 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35675
RSA No. 1860 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 1861 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1860 OF 2017 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1861 OF 2017 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O KOMMU MUNISWAMY
@ B.B. MUNISWAMY
RESIDENT OF BODANAMARI
VILLAGE, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125.
...COMMON APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
SWAPNA V SRI. GANGULAPPA,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
Court of S/O LATE PEDDA MUNIYAPPA,
Karnataka
RESIDENT OF BODANAMARI VILLAGE,
AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125.
...COMMON RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KALYAN .R., ADVOCATE)
RSA NO.1860 OF 2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
26.11.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTHAMANI, DISMISSING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35675
RSA No. 1860 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 1861 of 2017
HC-KAR
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.10.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.57/2002 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC
CHINTAMANI.
RSA NO.1861 OF 2017 FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
26.11.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.95/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTHAMANI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.10.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.109/2002 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
RSA No.1860 of 2017 is filed by the Defendant
assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015 in
R.A.No.94 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Chintamani, dismissing the appeal and confirming
the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 in O.S.No.57
of 2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior
Division), and J.M.F.C., Chintamani, decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC:35675
HC-KAR
2. RSA No. 1861 of 2017 is filed by the defendant
assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2015 in RA
No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC Chintamani, dismissing the appeal and confirming
the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005, in O.S.No.109
of 2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior
Division), and J.M.F.C., Chintamani decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff.
3. In these two appeals, as there is delay of 544
days in filing the appeals, IA No. 1 of 2017 is filed in RSA
No.1860 of 2017 and IA No. 2 of 2017 is filed in RSA
No.1861 of 2017 by the appellant seeking condonation of
delay.
4. I heard Sri H.R.Manjunath, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri Kalyan R, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. Sri H.R.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant has invited the attention of the Court to
NC: 2025:KHC:35675
HC-KAR
the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying
application and submitted that, the appeal was not
preferred within the stipulated time, as the appellant was
suffering from chikungunya ailments and therefore, sought
for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals.
6. Per contra, Sri Kalyan.R, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that, the reasons
assigned by the appellant herein seeking condonation of
delay for nearly 2 years is not bonafide and the ground
taken in the affidavit accompanying the application cannot
be accepted as the same is not sufficient cause under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, sought for
dismissal of the. IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2017 filed in both the
appeals.
7. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that there is a delay of nearly 2 years in filing the
appeals. I have also carefully examined the reasons
assigned by the appellant in the affidavit accompanying
NC: 2025:KHC:35675
HC-KAR
the applications in IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2017 wherein it is
stated that, during pendency of the appeals before the
First Appellate Court itself, the appellant was suffering
from chikungunya. It is also to be noted that, the
judgment and decree was passed by the First Appellate
Court on 26.11.2015. Therefore, taking into account the
reasons assigned by the appellant are not bonafide in
nature and no supporting documents have been produced
by the appellant to substantiate the same, as he was
suffering from ailments and further, sufficient cause has
not been shown to condone the delay of nearly 2 years in
filing the appeals. In that view of the matter, as the
bonafide reasons have not been made by the appellant
herein, in view of the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v/s
Chhanda Koley and Others 1. I am of the view that the
reasons assigned by the appellant cannot be considered as
bonafide reasons are assigned to show sufficient cause
2024 SCC ONLINE SC 551
NC: 2025:KHC:35675
HC-KAR
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In that view of the
matter, IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2017 in both the appeals are
dismissed.
8. Accordingly, Regular Second appeals are
dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SPV
CT:VS
