Karnataka High Court
Hanamant S/O Shivappa Kulagod vs Choudhari Drug Distributors Private ... on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149
RSA No. 101011 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101011 OF 2019 (MON)
BETWEEN:
HANAMANT S/O. SHIVAPPA KULAGOD
AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SIDDHARAMESHWAR MEDICAL STORES,
MUGALKHOD-587113,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHOUDHARI DRUG DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED
BELAGAVI,
REP. BY MR. RAJENDRA BALUSA CHOUDHARI,
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590008.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
...RESPONDENT
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.09.20
10:57:17 +0530
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.96/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:09.02.2016, PASSED IN O.S. NO.548/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI, DECREEING
THE SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149
RSA No. 101011 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against
the order passed on I.A. No.1 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act before the First Appellate Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of
Rs.59,528/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the
invoices till the date of actual payment, while came to be
decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the
said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the
appellant preferred the present appeal before the VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in R.A.
No.96/2019. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.
No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking
condonation of delay of 107 days in preferring the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149
HC-KAR
4. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the
First Appellate Court passed the order as under:
"ORDER
The I A No. 1 filed U/Sec 5 of Limitation Act is
hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal filed U/Sec 96 of CPC is
hereby dismissed as barred by limitation.
The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.
548/2015 dated: 09-02-2016 on the file of II Addl. Civil
Judge. Belagavi, is hereby confirmed.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 04th
day of July 2019."
5. The appellant has filed I.A. No.1 under Section 5
of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 107
days, along with an affidavit in which he has stated that he
has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment
and decree dated 09-02-2016 passed by the II Additional
Civil Judge, Belagavi, in O.S. No.548/2015.
6. He has further stated that the delay in preferring
the appeal occurred due to his lack of knowledge about the
procedure; he could not contact his counsel and furnish
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149
HC-KAR
instructions to prefer the appeal at the relevant time.
Hence, there was a delay of 107 days in filing this appeal.
He has also stated that there was no negligence or laches
on his part, that he has been diligent and is very much
interested in prosecuting the proceedings, and that he has
good grounds to succeed in the appeal. On all these
grounds, he has sought for allowing the application.
7. The First Appellate Court, in paragraph 16 of its
judgment, observed that the appellant herein had not led
any evidence on I.A. No.1 or produced any material to
justify the delay in preferring this appeal. On these
grounds, the First Appellate Court rejected the application.
8. The impugned order passed by the First
Appellate Court reveals that the respondent had not filed
any objections to the I.A.No.1. The averments made in the
affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.1 remained unchallenged
and uncontroverted. However, the First Appellate Court
rejected I.A. No.1, which is not sustainable in law.
Considering the averments made in the affidavit supporting
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149
HC-KAR
I.A. No.1, it is just and proper to allow the said application.
Accordingly, it is held that the First Appellate Court was not
justified in rejecting I.A. No.1 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the
negative.
9. For the aforesaid facts and discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the First
Appellate Court on I.A. No.1 filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act is set aside. Consequently,
and I.A. No.1 is allowed. Delay of 107 days in filing
the appeal is condoned.
iii. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate
Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal on
merits.
iv. The First Appellate Court shall provide an
opportunity to both parties submit their arguments
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149
HC-KAR
on the merits of the case. Thereafter, the appeal
shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
v. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this
order to the First Appellate Court for necessary
action.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
AC
CT-CMU
