- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13344 RSA No. 542 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2024 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS KODIYALA BILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562 109. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR .K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 2. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. SRI. NARAYANA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. SRI. SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O LATE HEBBAL THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13344 RSA No. 542 of 2024 ALL ARE R/AT KODIYALA BILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.70/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.01.2007 PASSED IN OS NO.30/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.D.), RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.3.2016 passed in R.A.No.70/07 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, and the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2007 passed in O.S.No.30/2003 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara. 2. The appellant has filed an application in I.A.1/2024 to condone the delay of 2126 days in filing the appeal. In support of the application, the appellant has filed an - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13344 RSA No. 542 of 2024 affidavit stating that, she has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and that, she is an illiterate and innocent village lady; due to her old age ailments and other family issues, she could not contact and follow up the case before the First Appellate Court; she was under the bonafide impression that the case before the first Appellate Court was pending, and was being looked after by her Advocate at Ramanagara. She has further stated in the affidavit that, only when she received the suit summons issued in O.S.No.156/2023, filed by Krishnappa (appellant No.3 herein), she learnt that her appeal before the Court below has been disposed of. Immediately thereafter, she contacted her earlier Advocate at Ramanagara and requested him to obtain relevant documents from the concerned courts below. Thereafter, the application came to be filed on 21.11.2023 for certified copy of the judgment, and the same was ready and delivered on 12.01.2024. Thus, a delay has been caused in filing the appeal. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13344 RSA No. 542 of 2024 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.1/2024. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an illiterate lady, she does not know the procedure for filing the appeal, she was not aware of the disposal of the appeal before the first Appellate Court. Only when she received a summons in O.S.No.156/2023, she has immediately applied for the certified copies of the Judgment and thus, the delay has been caused in filing the appeal. Hence, prays to allow the application. 5. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The appellant herself has filed the suit in O.S.No.30/2003 and the said suit was disposed of on 5.1.2007. After words of the appeal came to be filed before the first Appellate Court in R.A.No.70/2007. The first Appellate Court, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 16.3.2016. The appellant did not choose to file the appeal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13344 RSA No. 542 of 2024 within the prescribed time, whereas, she has filed this appeal after a lapse of 5 years, 8 months and 9 days. Thus there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the delay cannot be condoned as, the appellant has not shown the sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time. I do not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 5 years, 8 months and 9 days in preferring this appeal. 7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER i) I.A.1/24 is rejected. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.2/24 does not survive for consideration, and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE Rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46