- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KRISHNAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT KERALALUSANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562159. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RATHNAMMA W/O MUNISWAMAIAH AED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT KERALALUSANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SHALINI B.S., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN R.A.NO.5027/2019 (OLD R.A.NO.30/2017) ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA TO SIT AT KANAKAPURA DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021 CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.377/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KANAKAPURA. 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 for the appellant. 2. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.377/2012 is that plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant is illegally interfering with lawful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, sought for the relief of permanent injunction. 3. The Trial Court issued notice to the defendant in O.S.No.377/2012 i.e., the appellant herein and appellant engaged the counsel and did not file any written statement and not contested the matter. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in the year 2014. Inspite of suit being decreed in the year 2014, appeal was not filed in time and it was filed in 2017. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021 respondent/plaintiff also filed Execution Case No.8/2017 and after filing of execution case, appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and reason for the delay is that she was not keeping well and there was a delay of 944 days in filing the appeal. 4. The First Appellate Court also given liberty to explain the reason for delay in filing the appeal and she was also examined before the Trial Court as P.W.1 and not placed any document regarding delay is concerned. The First Appellate Court considering the fact that there is no explanation for the delay caused, comes to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons are assigned for condonation of delay and since there was delay of more than three years, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay rejecting I.A.No.1 and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by both the orders of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, present regular second appeal is filed before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the delay has caused due to ill-health and she could not file written statement in time and contest the matter before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19879 RSA No. 52 of 2021 Trial Court and also could not file the appeal. To substantiate the said contention of ill-health, nothing is placed before the First Appellate Court and no explanation is given for the inordinate delay and no sufficient cause is shown to condone the same. When such being the case, when notice was served in the original suit and represented through counsel and not contested the matter and in the appeal also, inordinate delay of 944 days was not satisfactorily explained. Hence, the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that each day’s delay of 944 days has not been explained. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court to the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40