- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22311 WP No. 18227 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18227 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI KALAVATHI D/O LATE NAGARATHNAMMA AND VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. MANJULA, W/O NAGESH, D/O LATE NAGARATHNAMMA AND VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. PARTHASARATHI, S/O LATE NAGARATHANAMMA AND VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.1275, VIJAYALAKSHMI COLONY, NEAR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, KADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560 067. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. P.C. VINITHA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22311 WP No. 18227 of 2025 AND: 1. SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. RATHNAMMA, D/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. YARREGOWDA, S/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SONNAMURTHY YARAPPA S/O LATE Y. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT BOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-C THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 05.06.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADJ, BRD ON I.A.NO.1/2017 FILED BY RESPONDENT IN R.A.NO. 182/2017 AND REJECT THE APPLICATION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22311 WP No. 18227 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition the petitioners are assailing the order dated 05.06.2025 in R.A.No.182/2017 on the file of I Addl. Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The facts in nutshell are that, the petitioners herein have filed suit in O.S.No.644/2010 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, seeking 1/3rd share in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit came to be decreed on 02.12.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein have filed R.A.No.182/2017 before the First Appellate Court. Since there is a delay in approaching the First Appellate Court, the respondents herein have filed I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 1090 days in filing the appeal. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record vide order dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22311 WP No. 18227 of 2025 05.06.2025 allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the respondents herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have presented this writ petition. 4. Smt. P.C. Vinitha, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in condoning the inordinate delay of 1090 days in filing the appeal and the reasons assigned by the respondents in I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is to the effect that they were illiterate and they were unable to understand the proceedings and accordingly it is submitted that the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and allowing I.A.1 in R.A.No.182/2017, is contrary to law. 5. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and after carefully - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22311 WP No. 18227 of 2025 examining the writ papers, it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.644/2010 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District seeking 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and undisputedly the suit is one for partition and separate possession in respect of the subject properties. 6. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, the respondents having suffered with judgment and decree before the trial court have preferred the appeal under Section 96 of CPC in RA.No.182/2017. Since there is a delay of 1090 days in filing the appeal, the respondents herein have filed I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the respondents in the affidavit accompanying the application in I.A.No.1, the First Appellate Court has allowed the application by imposing cost of Rs.6,000/-. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the suit is one which is for partition and separate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22311 WP No. 18227 of 2025 possession in respect of the subject land and further the property rights are required to be considered in the appeal, I do not find merit in the writ petition. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others - (2005)3 SCC 752 and the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others - 2024 SCC Online SC 551, I am of the view that if sufficient reasons have been assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application with regard to condoning the delay in filing the appeal or the revision, the jurisdictional court should be liberal and that too, when rights of the parties are agitated in respect of the subject matter. In that view of the matter, while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is not the length of delay, but the cause of delay has to be considered and as such, the First Appellate Court having taken note of the fact and reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application rightly allowed I.A.No.1 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22311 WP No. 18227 of 2025 further imposed cost of Rs.6,000/-. In that view of the matter, I am declined to interfere with the writ petition. For the above reasons, writ petition is dismissed. The First Appellate Court is requested to expedite the hearing. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK