- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20548 RSA No. 1110 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. SRI PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4. SRI MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL SONS OF LATE MUNIYAPPA R/AT PITCHAGUNTRAHALLI VILLAGE MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563130 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ERAPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20548 RSA No. 1110 of 2021 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 3. SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O VENKATARAMAN BOVI RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT PITCHAGUNTRAHALLI VILLAGE MASTI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 4. P G SUDARSHAN AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS S/O P V GOPALA IYENGER R/O NO.17 16TH CROSS 12TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560 055 4(A) SRI MADAN GOPAL S AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE P G SUDARSHAN 4(B) SRI RANGARAJU SUDARSHANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE P G SUDARSHAN BOTH R/AT No.17 16TH CROSS 12TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560 055 5. VENKATARAGHAVAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O JANAKI S MURTHY R/AT NO.48, 11TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, SRINAGARA BENGALURU 560 019 6. VASANTH RAGAVAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O JANAKI S MURTHY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20548 RSA No. 1110 of 2021 7. S S HARISH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O JANAKI S MURTHY 8. S S VIDYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O JANAKI S MURTHY RESPONDENTS No.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT PADMA BUILDING 8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 9. A N SRIRANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O A V NARASIMHA RAJU R/O SURYA BAKERY S C ROAD BENGALURU 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R7 & R8; NOTICE TO R1, R2 AND PROPOSED R4(A) & R4(B) – SERVED; V/O DT. 22.01.2025, NOTICE TO R5, R6 & R9 D/W) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.74/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20548 RSA No. 1110 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2021 wherein there is a prayer for condonation of delay of 1129 days in filing the appeal. The reasons stated in the accompanying application that they ought to have preferred the said appeal in time however, son of appellant No.3 by name Sandeep Kumar who was born in 2001 was suffering from chronic heart ailment since his childhood and he had undergone a surgery while he was of about five years and thereafter since, 2012 severe health complications, unfortunately, he died on 20.02.2017 and also the reason assigned in the affidavit in paragraph 5 that mother also passed away on 07.03.2017 and hence, the family was under shock. Apart from that the reason was assigned that when the appeal was pending before the First Appellate Court, the counsel not informed about the result of the said appeal and on enquiry also, the counsel did not give correct details and apart from that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20548 RSA No. 1110 of 2021 from the end of March 2020, due to COVID-19 pandemic, lock down had been ordered and only in the month of October 2020, they could meet their counsel and hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal and the same may be condoned. 2. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 7 and 8 submits that delay is not properly explained by the counsel for the appellants and each day delay has to be explained and the counsel would vehemently contend that the death was taken place in the year 2017 and the impugned judgment was passed in the month of November 2016 and hence, there is a clear delay of five years and same is not properly explained. The counsel submits that the impugned judgment was passed in the month of November 2016 but the death was taken place in the year 2017 and thereafter also not taken any steps to file the appeal. Unless each day delay has not been explained satisfactorily and sufficient cause is shown, the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20548 RSA No. 1110 of 2021 does not arise. The counsel submits that there is a concurrent finding and hence, question of considering the same does not arise. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the reasons assigned in the application and the statement of objections, it discloses that the impugned judgment was passed by the First Appellate Court on 22.11.2016 and the present appeal is filed on 01.10.2021 i.e., almost after five years and the reasons assigned in the affidavit that son of appellant No.3 by name Sandeep Kumar who was born in 2001 was suffering from chronic heart ailment since his childhood and he had undergone a surgery while he was of about five years and thereafter, he died on 20.02.2017 and also the other reason assigned in the affidavit that mother also passed away on 07.03.2017 and there is no explanation for the delay in filing the appeal even after 2017 also but no reasons are given except stating that there was a COVID pandemic in the month of March 2020 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20548 RSA No. 1110 of 2021 and they could not contact their advocate till October 2020. The said reasons cannot be a ground to condone the delay of five years in filing the appeal. Unless, each day delay is explained and sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay, the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal does not arise. When such being the case, I do not find any grounds to condone the delay of 1129 days in filing this appeal. Hence, I.A.No.1/2021 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of I.A.No.1/2021 and main appeal, other I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN