Karnataka High Court
Sri Javaraiah vs Smt Devamma on 10 September, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35945
RSA No. 1087 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1087 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAVARAIAH
S/O. LATE EARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT JAVANIKUPPE VILLAGE,
DODDABELALU,
RAVANDUR HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 108.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT DEVAMMA
D/O. LATE EARAIAH,
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
by R/AT PALADAHOSALLI VILLAGE,
SHARADAVANI HANAGODU HOBLI,
B
Location: High HUNASURU TALUK,
Court of MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 000.
Karnataka
2. SMT. JAVARAMMA
D/O. LATE EARAIAH,
W/O. LATE DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT BELGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
RAVANDURU HOBLI AND POST,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 000.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35945
RSA No. 1087 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. RATNAMMA
W/O. JAVARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
4. SRI. JAVAREGOWDA
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
5. SRI. MAYIGOWDA
S/O. LATE LAKKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
6. SRI. J. MAHADEVA
S/O. JAVAREGOWDA @ T. JAVARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
7. SRI. J. LOKESH
S/O. JAVAREGOWDA @ T. JAVARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 ARE
R/AT JAVANIKUPPE VILLAGE,
DODDABELALU,
RAVANDUR HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 108.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025, APPEAL IS DISMISSED
AS AGAINST RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 4
R2, R3 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7 (ABSENT))
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2022
PASSED IN RA NO.9/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, PERIYAPATNA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2021
PASSED IN OS NO. 356/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35945
RSA No. 1087 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Roopesha B., learned counsel for the
appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed to condone the huge
delay of 551 days in filing the appeal.
3. An affidavit is filed in support of the
I.A.No.1/2024. Relevant portions are in paragraphs No.3
and 4 which are extracted hereunder for ready reference :
"3. after service of summons in I submit that,
R.A.No.9/2021 I appeared through my advocate and my
advocate was prosecuting the above appeal, after
Judgment and decree passed in appeal in R.A.No.9/2021,
my advocate informed me through telephonically and
asked me to file appeal, during which period I was
suffering from ill health, with old age elements like
Cardiac and diabatic diseases, as such I was taking
treatment, apart from the same I am doing agriculture
activities from the above said earning I was leading my
life. I have also suffered financial crisis in view of draught
NC: 2025:KHC:35945
HC-KAR
season, wherefore immediately I could not take steps to
file appeal before this Hon'ble court intime.
4. I state that, with great difficulty I arranged
money and contacted my trial court counsel in the 2nd
week of June 2024, he informed me to prefer appeal
before this Hon'ble court, as I was not aware of advocates
in Bengaluru I requested my trial court advocate to
accompany me in taking further steps. Thereafter in the
1st week of July 2024 we contacted the present counsel
and took steps to prefer an appeal and present appeal has
been filed, for the above said bonafide reasons there is a
delay in preferring the appeal."
4. This Court granted time for filing the medical
records to substantiate the contentions in paragraphs No.3
and 4. However, the appellant has failed to place any
medical records.
5. Thus, only on the basis of the self serving
testimony in the form of paragraphs No.3 and 4, huge
delay of 551 days cannot be condoned.
6. Moreover, the appellant herein did not chose to
challenge the decree of the Trial Court before the First
NC: 2025:KHC:35945
HC-KAR
Appellate Court nor the present appellant filed any cross
objections or cross appeal.
7. Under such circumstances, challenging the
order of the First Appellate Court before this Court would
not arise.
8. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, there is no
merit in the appeal and as such, huge delay of 551 days
cannot be condoned.
9. Hence, following Order:
ORDER
(i) I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected.
(ii) Consequently, appeal is also rejected.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SNC
ct:BHK
