- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200194 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HULIGEMMA W/O DURUGAPPA D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRWAR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 129. 2. VEERUPAKSHI S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT : RAICHUR – 584 104. 3. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O ANJINAYYA D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: PUCHALADINNI VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 133. 4. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT RAICHUR – 584 101. 5. SMT BASAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 104. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HALALLI S.S., AND SRI B.V.JALDE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 104. 2. GOVINDA S/O MAHALINGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. RENUKA W/O LATE GOVINDA MOHAMMED SHAMSHIR KHAN, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 104. 3. RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE GOVINDA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 104. 4. VIJAY S/O LATE GOVINDA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 104. 5. NARASIMHA S/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGE: 33 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 104. 6. NARASAPPA S/O LATE SHIVANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT LAXMI W/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKLASPUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DISTRICT: RAICHUR – 584 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NEEVA M. CHIMKOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R5, R6; R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.06.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,- II COURT AT RAICHUR IN O.S.NO.73/2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.-I AT RAICHUR IN R.A.NO.54/2024 DATED 22.03.2025 AND FURTHER REMAND THE MATTER TO THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT With consent of both parties, appeal was heard, admitted, substantial question of law framed and taken up for final disposal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 2. Challenging judgment and decree dated 22.03.2025 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Raichur, in RA no.54/2024 and judgment and decree dated 21.06.2023 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Raichur, in OS no.73/2018, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri S S Halalli, learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants were aggrieved by concurrent erroneous judgments dismissing their suit for partition, separate possession and declaration of sale deed as null and void. Learned counsel for appellants at outset submitted that against judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, appellants had filed first appeal with a delay of one year and one month, accompanied by I.A. no.1 under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Though, there was sufficient explanation for delay, learned appellate judge without proper consideration, rejected application and consequently dismissed appeal. Under above circumstances, it was submitted that appellants would be satisfied, if judgment of first appellate Court is set aside and matter is remitted back to it for consideration of appeal on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 4. Smt.Neeva M Chimkod, learned counsel for caveat- respondents no.1, 2, 5,and 6 opposed petition. It was submitted, after considering entire material on record, trial Court had passed a reasoned judgment dismissing suit. Since, appeal was filed beyond period of limitation without adequate explanation, first appellate Court had rightly dismissed appeal. It was further submitted that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and therefore sought dismissal of appeal. 5. In reply, learned counsel for appellants argued that rejection of appeal filed for condonation of delay was contrary to principles laid down in case of The Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority v. S S Sarvesh (2018 SCC Online Kar 1151), referring to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1955 SC 425, wherein it held that too technical construction of provisions should be avoided and Courts should strive towards doing substantial justice. Therefore, substantial question law about judgment and decree of first appellate Court being contrary to law, would arise for consideration. He sought for answering same in favour of appellants and allow appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and decree. 7. Appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law: “Whether dismissal of I.A. no.1, by first appellate court was contrary to law and therefore, consequent dismissal of appeal calls for interference?” 8. In view of submission made and as substantial question of law is confined to determining validity of First Appellate Court’s order dismissing application for condonation of delay, this Court need not delve into findings on merits of claims of respective parties by trial Court. 9. Against judgment and decree passed by Trial Court dated on 21.06.2023, plaintiffs filed appeal on 29.10.2024. Admittedly there was delay of one year and one month and I.A.no.1 was filed for condonation of delay. In affidavit in its support (a certified copy of which was made available for Court’s perusal by learned counsel) plaintiffs’ assertion is that in month of October 2024 they came to know of dismissal of their suit, as they were in Bangalore for earning their livelihood - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 and for a year they had not returned to their village. They stated that same had led to delay in filing appeal. First appellate Court observed that defendants had not filed objections to said application. However, it found appellants’ explanation as not constituting insufficient cause, as it was not supported by any documents or material evidence. Meaning of sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been elucidated by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in various decisions, to be such cause, as would be beyond control of parties. In instant case, appellants though in telegraphic language pleaded that they were in Bangalore for livelihood purposes, their claim was not controverted by defendants. Under such circumstances, reasons assigned by first appellate Court for rejecting I.A.no.1 that plaintiffs had not supported application with documents would not stand to reason, when inconvenience caused to defendants due to delay could be balanced by imposing cost. 10. In view of above, substantial question of law answered in favor of appellants. Consequently, following order: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3046 RSA No. 200194 of 2025 ORDER a. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated 22.03.2025 passed by first appellate Court in R.A.no.54/2024 is set aside. I.A.no.1, filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 4,000/-, to be shared by defendants. b. Since, some of parties are represented, they are directed to appear before first appellate Court on 21.07.2025 without awaiting fresh notice. c. First appellate Court is directed to issue notice to others and after service of notice, proceed to hear appeal in accordance with law and pass appropriate judgment. d. Registry is directed to forthwith transmit trial Court records to first appellate Court well before 21.07.2025 e. All contentions of both parties on merits of appeal are kept open to be decided by first appellate Court. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23