[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddappa S/O Laxmappa Sonnad vs Sri Mahammedsaheb S/O Noorali Bisti on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
RSA No. 100829 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100829 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA SONNAD,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHAMMEDSAHEB S/O. NOORALI BISTI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
SRI. VENKAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA SONNAD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
Digitally signed
by GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
2. SMT. LAXMI W/O. VENKAPPA SONNAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
DHARWAD
BENCH R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
3. SRI. LAXMAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA SONNAD,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MACHAKANUR, TALUK: MUDHOL,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
RSA No. 100829 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MUDHOL IN R.A.NO.05/2023 AND THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.09.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.274/2016 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
MUDHOL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard both sides on I.A. No.2/2026.
2. I.A. No.2/2026 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 196 days in
filing the appeal.
3. In the affidavit annexed to I.A.No.2/2026, the appellant
has stated that the First Appellate Court has passed the
judgment and decree on 12.12.2024. Thereafter, he
applied for certified copy on 19.03.2025 and obtained
the same on 26.03.2025. Subsequently, he approached
his advocate and filed the present appeal. It is further
stated that he was not aware that the appeal had to be
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
filed within 90 days, and due to certain unavoidable
circumstances he could not file the appeal within
prescribed period of limitation. It is contended that the
delay is neither intentional one nor deliberate one, but
for the circumstances stated above. Hence prayed for
condonation of delay of 196 days.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed
statement of objections to I.A.No.2/2026 contending
that the appellant was fully aware of dismissal of his
appeal on 12.12.2024, but he has not assigned any
acceptable reason for filing the appeal belatedly. It is
further stated about facts of the case that, after passing
the judgment and decree by the Trial Court,
E.P.No.22/2017 was filed, wherein the present
appellant appeared as JDLR No.2, but he did not file
any statement of objections till the closure of the
execution petition on 29.08.2024, on which date the
execution petition was closed as fully satisfied, since
the rectified sale deed as prayed in the suit had already
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
been registered. Despite being fully aware of these
facts and despite there being no merit in the appeal,
the appellant has filed the present application seeking
condonation of delay, wherein no acceptable reasons
are assigned. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of
I.A.No.2/2026.
5. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the point
that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the appellant proves that he was
prevented from sufficient cause in not
preferring the appeal within the prescribed
period of limitation?"
6. My finding on the above point is in 'negative', for the
following reasons:
6.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the
judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024 passed
in R.A. No.5/2023 on the file of Principal Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
6.2. As per Article 116 of the Limitation Act, the
period of limitation for filing a second appeal is
90 days from the date of decree. Therefore, the
appeal ought to have been filed within the said
period. However, the present appeal has been
filed with delay of 196 days.
6.3. The only reason assigned by the appellant for the
delay is that he was not aware that the appeal
had to be filed within 90 days and that due to
certain unavoidable circumstances he could not
file the appeal within the prescribed time.
However, the appellant has not explained what
are those unavoidable circumstances in the
affidavit annexed I.A. No.2/2026.
6.4. Mere ignorance of the period of limitation cannot
be considered as a sufficient cause for condoning
the delay. These aspects assume importance in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
6.5. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff on
08.08.2016 against the defendant seeking
rectification of the plot number in the sale deed
dated 12.11.2004 executed by the defendant. In
the said suit, the defendant appeared through
his counsel, but did not contest the matter by
filing written statement.
6.6. The said suit was decreed on 08.09.2017. After
passing of the decree, Execution Petition
No.22/2017 was filed. During pendency of the
said execution petition, the original Judgment
Debtor (JDR) died on 08.10.2018. Thereafter,
the plaintiff/Decree Holder (DHR) filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC on
11.07.2019 seeking to implead the present
appellant as Judgment Debtor No.2, since his
name was reflected in the revenue records. After
service of notice of the said application,
Judgment Debtor No.2/present appellant
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
appeared though his counsel, but did not file
objections to the execution petition. Ultimately,
on 11.08.2020, the said application was allowed
and he was impleaded as Judgment Debtor No.2.
6.7. Subsequently, on 21.08.2024, as per the order
of the Court, the Court Commissioner has
executed and got registered rectified sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff/Decree Holder, and
thereafter, on 29.08.2024, the execution petition
was closed as fully satisfied. The present
appellant was fully aware of the said
proceedings. In the meanwhile, the appellant
had filed R.A. No.5/2023 on 17.04.2023
challenging the judgment and decree dated
08.09.2017, and the same came to be dismissed
on merits on 12.12.2024. Thereafter, the present
Regular Second Appeal was filed on 24.09.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that the suit itself was not maintainable in
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
law, as suit for rectification of sale deed was filed three
years after the sale deed, and therefore the delay in
filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. The date of
sale deed cannot be the date to file a suit for
rectification of sale deed.
8. As per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the limitation
prescribed is three years to file a suit for which no
period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the
Schedule, from the date when the right to sue accrues.
9. In the instant case, in the plaint, the plaintiff has
specifically stated that the cause of action arose on
02.08.2016, when he came to know that the defendant
was intending to alienate or transfer the suit schedule
property to a third party by taking advantage of the
wrong mention of the plot number in the sale deed of
the plaintiff and by continuing his name in the Record
of Rights, and further refused to execute the
rectification deed.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
10. Thus, from the date of cause of action i.e., from
02.08.2016, the present suit was filed on 08.08.2016,
which is within the period of limitation. Hence, the
above argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant cannot be accepted.
11. As observed above, no acceptable reason is assigned in
the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2/2026 for
condoning the delay of 196 days in preferring the
present appeal. The appellant applied for the certified
copy of the judgment and decree on 19.03.2025 and
obtained the same on 26.03.2025. Only for those seven
days, a reasonable explanation is available.
12. For the remaining period of delay, no satisfactory
reason has been assigned. Hence, considering these
facts, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has
failed to establish that he was prevented from
sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3948
HC-KAR
prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the point
under consideration is answered in negative.
13. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) I.A. No.2/2026 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is
dismissed as barred by limitation.
ii) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if
any, do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
gab - upto para 6.5
vb - para 6.6 to end
CT-MCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22
