- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24626 RSA No. 404 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.404 OF 2022 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. THOPAMMA V.V., W/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS SINCE DECEASED 1. SRI. V.V.RAVI S/O LATE V.C.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. V.V.SUBRAMANI S/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SRI. V.V. RAGHU S/O LATE V.C.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 4. SMT. V.V. SUKANYA D/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5. SRI. V.V.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KANNANGALA VILLAGE AMMATHI ONTINGADI Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24626 RSA No. 404 of 2022 VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 218. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. V.J. SARASWATHI W/O LATE V.V.JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O KANNANGALA VILLAGE AMMATHI ONTINAGADI, VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. 2. SMT. V.J.SABITHA W/O SRI MADHU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SMT. V.J. SUMITHRA W/O SRI. ANAND AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. SMT. V.J. SWETHA W/O GIRISH @ LOKESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/O NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR HOSAMANE CIRCLE BHADRAVATHI-577 301. 5. MUKKATIRA S/O C. KAVERIAPAP @ JAYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O SHETTI BANE AMMATHI, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAG DISTRICT-571 211. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.112/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24626 RSA No. 404 of 2022 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This appeal is filed against rejection of I.A.No.1, wherein prayer was sought before the First Appellate Court to condone the delay of 337 days. While filing an application before the First Appellate Court to condone the delay, it is contended that the appellants were not having the knowledge about the disposal of the suit and in support of the contention, the appellant was examined as P.W.1 before the Court. Though P.W.1 was examined before the First Appellate Court, not produced any documentary evidence before the Court, since pleaded about the fact that first defendant was not keeping well and she was seriously bedridden. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that While seeking the condonation of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24626 RSA No. 404 of 2022 delay, in support of the contention of defendant No.1, not produced any medical records and further taken note that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, who has been examined before the First Appellate Court, in support of delay is concerned, he categorically admitted that regularly attending before the Trial Court by engaging the advocate. Hence, the very contention that not having the knowledge about the disposal of the suit is not accepted. Apart from that the First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that they also engaged the advocate in FDP proceedings and furthermore, Court Commissioner has also demarcated the suit schedule property by issuing notice to P.W.1 and taken note of all these admissions on the part of P.W.1 while dismissing the application filed to condone the delay and also observed that when seven defendants are the appellants in the appeal and if one of the defendant is seriously ill, what prevented other defendants to file an appeal also nothing is stated and taken note of the said fact into consideration, particularly the admission on the part of P.W.1 and also taken note of the judgment of this Court 2014 (3) KAR.L.J.633 (NARASIMHA ALIAS NARSIMAIAH (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS L.Rs V/S. S. JAGADISH AND - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24626 RSA No. 404 of 2022 ANOTHER) regarding condonation of delay, wherein also discussion was made that suit was filed for the relief of recovery of possession, it is not known why eleven others did not evince interest to file appeal in time, since other 11 persons have not filed any affidavit and explaining the delay is concerned and lack of bonafides is attributable to appellants and also an observation is made that glimpses of merits of the case was also looked into by the Court and delay application was dismissed. 3. Having considered the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit this appeal since the regular appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay wherein considered clear admission on the part of PW1 that having the knowledge of the case and engaged the advocate both in the original suit as well as in the final decree proceedings and participated in the final decree proceedings and commissioner report also filed and the property was demarcated. After participating in the final decree proceedings only, filed an affidavit before the Court. Hence, not find any sufficient reasons to condone the delay. This Court is of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24626 RSA No. 404 of 2022 opinion that the First Appellate Court rightly considered the application for condonation of delay in coming to the conclusion that the delay was not explained properly since there were number of appellants and they have not taken any steps instead of that participated in the final decree proceedings only and with an intention to scuttle the proceedings in the final decree proceedings and even after demarcation of the property, the regular appeal was filed. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame the substantive question of law. 4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST,SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44