- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11453 WP No. 25900 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25900 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. MARI @ MARAPPA S/O LATE DASAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO 2505 3RD CROSS, HOSABANDIKERI MYSURU 570004 PRESENTLY R/AT ANNAPURNESHWARI TEA HOTEL NO 1799, FIRST FLOOR,5TH CROSS 80 FEET ROAD, MAHAMANE CIRCLE KANAKADASA NAGARA, DATTAGALLI MYSURU 570026. 2. SRI DASAPPA @ DASEGOWDA S/O LATE DASAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT ANANPURNESHWARI HOTEL NEAR RUBI BAKERY RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA MYSURU 570022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR C S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. D. YASHODHA W/O LATE C R SIDDARAJU Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11453 WP No. 25900 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO 179 5TH CROSS, TEACHERS LAYOUT RAJENDRANAGARA, MYSURU 570029 PRESENTLY R/AT YELIGEHUNDI SARKARI INAM, UTTANAHALLI VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 570010. 2. SRI V RAVICHANDRA S/O LATE VENKATESH & SMT CHIKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3. SRI JEEVANKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATESH & SMT CHIKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 4. CHIKKAMMA W/O LATE VENAKTESH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R2 TO R4 ARE R/AT DOOR NO 179 5TH CROSS, TEACHERS LAYOUT RAJENDRANAGARA, MYSURU-570029 PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO 158 5TH CROSS, TERISIAN COLLEGE ROAD VIDYANAGARA, MYSURU 570011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 07.06.2024 IN RA NO. 219/2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11453 WP No. 25900 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the respondents before the Appellate Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in R.A.No.219/2022, whereby the application filed by the respondents herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed and the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. 2. The respondents herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016. After a lapse of six years, the appeal has been filed. Along with the appeal, they have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application is filed for condoning delay of four - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11453 WP No. 25900 of 2024 years and one month, after excluding the period of Covid Pandemic. The Appellate Court allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the suit has been decreed on 14.07.2016 on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. After a lapse of six years, in the year 2022, the appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dated 14.07.2016. They have not explained the delay in filing the appeal. The only reason assigned is that there was a Covid Pandemic and during that period, there was an exemption. (ii) Secondly, the suit has been dismissed in the year 2016. The appeal has to be filed within 30 days, that means to say, on or before 14.08.2016. The Covid Pandemic started in the month of December 2019. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11453 WP No. 25900 of 2024 Therefore, there is no proper explanation for condonation of delay. In support of his contention, he has also relied on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY (SLP © Diary No.48636/2024 dated 29.11.2024 and contended that each day’s delay has to be explained. The Appellate Court, contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court, has allowed the application. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents are the poor villagers, the first respondent was suffering from cancer and has financial constraints, she was unable to file an appeal immediately. In the meantime, there was Covid Pandemic. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeal. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11453 WP No. 25900 of 2024 6. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein filed a suit for partition. It is also not in dispute regarding the relationship of the parties. The suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed on 14.07.2016 on the ground that they have failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The appeal was filed in the year 2022. Along with the appeal, they have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of four years one month in preferring the appeal. To prove the case, the first respondent herein has been examined as PW1 and marked eight documents. 7. The specific case of the respondent No.1 herein is that, they are the villagers and PW1 is a widow, she has financial constraints to approach the Appellate Court immediately after the dismissal order passed by the trial court. She has also deposed that she is suffering from cancer and she has produced Ex.P1, medical records to show that she was diagnosed as Ca.Cervix (postoperative - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11453 WP No. 25900 of 2024 + post External Beam Radiation Therapy + Chemotherapy) - Stage III A. Ex.P2 reveals that in the year 2023 she suffered from Uterus and ovaries post op status and she is taking the treatment. Considering the fact that the respondents herein are the poor illiterate villagers and first respondent is the widow and she is suffering from cancer and considering the financial constraints, the trial court has rightly condoned the delay. 8. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39