The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.349 OF 2022 (PA/DE/IN) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: SRI M.R. ANANDA RAJU S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.804, 8TH MAIN ROAD SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. (BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GOWRAMMA SINCE DEAD HER LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD 1. SRI. M.R. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.1015/B 17TH D CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. 2. SRI M R BABU REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 R/AT NO.1550/1, 3RD E CROSS E STOP NGEF LAYOUT KAVERI NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 043.
Legal Reasoning
3. SRI. M.R. BHAVENDRA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.358, 5TH MAIN ROAD K R PURAM OLD EXTENSION BENGALURU - 560 036. 4. SMT. N. KANTHAMMA W/O M R BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.1550/1, 3RD ‘E’ CROSS E-STOP, NGEF LAYOUT KAVERI NAGARA BENGALURU - 560 043. 5. SMT. M.R. SUNANDA D/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY W/O SRI KODANDARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.153, 6TH MAIN ROAD AVALAHALLI BDA LAYOUT BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085. 6. SMT. M. R. SULOCHANA D/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY W/O SRI SATHYANRAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YAERS R/AT NO.97/2 SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA VIRGONAGAR POST BASAVANAPURA BENGALURU - 560 049. SMT M R HEMAVATHI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 D/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 7. SRI. R. RAVIKUMAR REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 8. SRI. VINAY R REDDY S/O RAVIKUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 9. SMT. KANCHAN D/O RAVIKUMAR REDDY W/O BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. RESPONDENT Nos.7 TO 9 ARE R/AT NO.18, 7TH CROSS 30TH MAIN, BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLII RULE 2 R/W SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2022 PASSED ON IA No.1 IN RA.No.251/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE IA No.1 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.04.2014 PASSED IN OS No.1057/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order on IA No.1 dated 19.01.2022 passed by the VI District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural, Bengaluru and consequently dismissed the appeal on RA No.251/2020. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was plaintiff No.1, respondents no.1 to 3 were defendants No.2 to 4 and respondents no.5 and 6 were plaintiffs no.2 and 3. 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants in O.S.No.1057/2007, for partition and separate possession. The trial Court, after trial decreed the suit in part and dismissed the suit in respect of item No.4 of the suit - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 schedule property vide judgment dated 21.04.2014. Plaintiff No.1, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit regarding item No.4 of the suit schedule property, filed an appeal in RA No.251/2010 along with an application for condonation of delay of 2268 days in filing the appeal. The First Appellate Court recorded the evidence of plaintiff No.1 on IA No.1 and rejected IA No.1 and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Plaintiff No.1, aggrieved by the order on IA No.1, passed in RA 215/2020 and dismissal of the appeal, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for plaintiff No.1 submits that after the dismissal of the suit, insofar as item No.4 of the suit schedule property is concerned, the defendants approached the plaintiffs and informed them that they were going to settle the matter, including item No.4 of the suit schedule property. In view of the assurance given by the defendants, plaintiff No.1 did not file an appeal. He submits that plaintiff No.1 has shown sufficient cause for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 not preferring the appeal within time. The said aspect was not properly appreciated by the First Appellate Court and committed an error in rejecting IA No.1. Hence on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for plaintiff No.1. 7. It is not in dispute that plaintiff No.1 has filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants. The parties have led the oral evidence produced and marked documents. The trial Court, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly decreed the suit of plaintiff No.1 and dismissed the suit in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 filed FDP proceedings in FDP No.36/2014 and the said FDP proceedings is pending. During the pendency of the FDP proceedings, plaintiff No.1, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in item No.4 of the suit schedule property, has filed an appeal in R.A.No.251/2020. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.1, under - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 2268 days in filing the appeal. In support of the application, plaintiff No.1 filed an affidavit stating that after filing the FDP proceedings by plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, the respondents came forward and assured the plaintiffs that they were going to amicably settle the dispute, including item No.4 of the suit schedule property and the partition can be effected in respect of the suit schedule properties, including item No.4. Hence, plaintiff No.1 did not challenge the dismissal of the suit regarding item No.4 of the suit schedule property. The said fact was denied by the respondents by filing objections. The First Appellate Court conducted an enquiry on I.A.No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1. He admits that the counsel appearing for plaintiff No. 1 in R.A.No.251/2020 is the same counsel who had appeared for the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.1057/2007 and he had filed Final Decree proceedings in FDP No. 36/2014. Admittedly, there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal, challenging the judgment and preliminary decree, insofar as item No.4 is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 concerned. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 disposed of on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, declined to condone the delay of 467 days in preferring an application for setting aside the exparte decree. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS VS. T.T.MURALI BABU reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, held in paragraph 17, as follows : “17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold." (Emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the doctrine of delay and laches. Considering the law laid down in the case of LINGESWARAN AND CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS referred supra, the First Appellate Court was justified in recording a finding that plaintiff No.1/appellant, has not shown a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 2268 days in preferring the appeal. The First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the I.A.No.1. I do not find any - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9291 RSA No. 349 of 2022 error in the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.1/2022 does not survive for consideration, and it is, accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE rs