- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19326 RSA No. 299 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.299 OF 2023 (SP) BETWEEN: SHRI BANDAPPA S/O SHAMBE GOWDA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT D.NO.2576, 4TH CROSS, BEHIND BASAVAIAHANA GARADI K G KOPPAL MYSURU 570009 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE C KUMAR AGED 52 YEARS R/AT D No.46/5(A) 2ND CROSS, K G KOPPAL MYSURU 570009 2. SRI RACHAPPAJI @ RAJU S/O LATE C KUMAR AGED 29 YEARS R/A D. No.46/5(A) 2ND CROSS, K G KOPPAL MYSURU 570009 3. SMT. SHILPA D/O LATE C KUMAR AGED 32 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19326 RSA No. 299 of 2023 R/A D. No.46/5(A) 2ND CROSS, K G KOPPAL MYSURU 570009 …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS SERVED- UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED IN RA.No.52/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2023 which is filed for condonation of delay of 1166 days in filing the appeal. In support of this application, an affidavit is sworn to stating that the appellant was unwell and was not able to approach the advocate on several hearing dates. That apart, the appellant was put to immense difficulties and approached the advocate on record and informed that there was a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19326 RSA No. 299 of 2023 judgment. However, could not go the office and appraise him. Thereafter, the appellant requested the advocate on record to secure the certified copy of the judgment at the instance of the children who said that case is dismissed and the property is being put to difficulties. It is also stated that certified copy was applied on 15.11.2022 and the same was delivered on 23.12.2022 and even after obtaining the certified copy, since, the advocate was busy, could not able to prepare the appeal in time and hence, there is a substantial cause to urge before this Court and prayed to condone the delay. 2. Having considered the affidavit filed by the appellant is discloses that though it is stated that the appellant was unwell, in support of the said contention, no document is placed before the Court. Admittedly, the appeal was dismissed in the month of September 2017 and the present appeal is filed in the year 2023. Having considered the reasons assigned in the affidavit, though it is contended that informed by the children and secured - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19326 RSA No. 299 of 2023 the certified copy, the said affidavit is very bald and nothing is stated with regard to the fact that when the appellant came to know about the judgment because it is only stated that thereafter approached the advocate on record but when the appellant approached the advocate on record also not stated in the affidavit and an omnibus statement is made that came to know about the same and due to unwell, he could not approach the advocate and how long, the appellant was unwell also not stated in the affidavit. Inspite of after getting the certified copy also, not pursued immediately to file the appeal. On perusal of the affidavit, it discloses that no proper reasons are assigned to condone the delay. 3. No doubt, the counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2025 LIVELAW (SC) 339 in the case of INDER SINGH vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH wherein the Apex Court held that although delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the case’s merit cannot be discarded solely on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19326 RSA No. 299 of 2023 technical grounds of limitation. A liberal approach should be taken in condoning the delays when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice. 4. No dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the above judgment wherein the Apex Court taken note of delay of two years. In the case on hand, judgment was delivered in the year 2017 and the present appeal is filed in the year 2023 and hence, there is a delay of 1166 days even after deducting the period of COVID. When such being the case, to condone the delay, there is no sufficient cause and having read the affidavit, this Court also made an observation that affidavit is also very bald since nothing is discussed that when the appellant came to know about the dismissal of the appeal and apart from that in the case on hand, suit is filed for the relief of specific performance and suit was dismissed answering point Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the very execution of the agreement and also the payment of sale consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19326 RSA No. 299 of 2023 The appellate Court also re-appreciated the material on record and concurred the judgment of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the very sale transaction was not proved. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 1166 days in filing the appeal. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case and also there is an inordinate delay and the same has not been explained by placing documentary evidence and affidavit is very bald. Hence, I.A.No.1/2023 is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, this RSA is also dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN