- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49060-DB RFA No. 2061 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2061 OF 2018 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BHAGAWANTH D.SANNAKKI S/O SRI. DHARMA SANNAKKI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SMT. VIJAYA B.SANNAKKI W/O BHAGAWANTH D.SANNAKKI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 3. PRASHANTH. B.SANNAKKI S/O BHAGAWANTH.D.SANNAKKI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. VIKRAM B.SANNAKKI S/O BHAGAWANTH D.SANNAKKI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT -1146, 11TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 040. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. L.RAJA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAFIA SULTAN W/O S.A.MATTIN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49060-DB RFA No. 2061 of 2018 2. M.S.JAFFAR S/O S.A.MATTIN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3/A, S.V.K LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THE RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2036/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2016 passed in O.S. No. 2036 of 2012 by the III Additional City Civil and Special Judge, Bengaluru City. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49060-DB RFA No. 2061 of 2018 2. The appeal was filed after a delay of 962 days. An affidavit has been filed in support of I.A. No. 1 of 2018, seeking condonation of delay, which states the following reasons: “I state that, I am 69 year old person, 2nd Appellant is my wife and Appellant No.3 & 4 are my Sons. I am looking after my case in Trial Court. We all have no much legal knowledge and have no knowledge of remedy of Appeal against the impugned Judgment and decree. My advocate who had conducted my case at the Trial Court has not informed me about the dismissal of my suit immediately but he informed me after lapse of several months and very recently in the month of November 2018 my advocate has delivered me the case papers. I have obtained the Certified Copy of the Judgment and Decree in the 1st week of October 2018 and after arranging some amount from my friends and relatives to bear the legal fees and legal expenditures, I have approached my present Advocate with case papers in the 3rd week of November 2018, who had instructed me about the remedy of appeal and to prefer Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Decree.” 3. The sole ground for seeking condonation of the 962-day delay is that the advocate who conducted the case at the trial court did not inform the appellant/defendant about the dismissal of the suit in a timely manner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49060-DB RFA No. 2061 of 2018 4. Crucially, no particulars of the said advocate have been provided in the affidavit. Furthermore, no complaint has been filed against that advocate for alleged professional negligence or failure to perform his duties as expected. In the absence of such material particulars and corroborative action, the bald assertion made in the affidavit cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay. 5. The reasons stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the application do not satisfy the legal requirements for condoning such an enormous delay. We do not find the reasons to be true and correct in the context of the evidence on record. Consequently, we are of the considered view that a delay of 962 days cannot be condoned. 6. Therefore, I.A. No. 1 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49060-DB RFA No. 2061 of 2018 7. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation, the appeal, being barred by limitation, cannot be entertained on merits. We also note that the appeal was filed in the year 2018, and since then, the counsel for the appellant has not prosecuted the matter with due diligence to demonstrate any urgency. 8. Resultantly, the appeal also stands dismissed. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA