- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1002 OF 2025 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. V. MADHUCHANDRA S/O LATE R. VARAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. SMT. GEETHAMALA V., D/O LATE R. VARAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT 2ND CROSS, 1ST WARD CHIKKBALLAPUR CITY-562101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LALITHA S. CHETTY W/O LATE K.R.SRINIVASAIAH CHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.229, 215 2ND CROSS, BEERAPPA STREET CHIKKABALLAPURA CITY-562101. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE I OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN R.A.NO.86/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE I.A. AND DISMISSING Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025 THE APPEAL AND FILES AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.191/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a delay of 4 years 11 months in preferring the appeal. No doubt the appellants relies upon the document Ex.P.1-discharge summary which clearly discloses that he was admitted to hospital on 22.09.2021 and he was discharged on 04.10.2021. Ex.P.2 is the outpatient file issued by the said hospital in favour of the appellant No.1 and except producing Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, not produced any other documents. 3. Having perused the records, it discloses that suit was filed in the year 2013 and suit was decreed in 2019. The present appeal is filed in 2024 and except the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025 reason that he was admitted to hospital in the year 2021, no other reasons are assigned. But, only counsel would contend that the counsel who conducted the case in O.S.No.181/2013 passed away and hence not cross examined the witness and also not lead any evidence and what prevented him to meet the Advocate during the pendency of the suit as well as even after the disposal also, nothing is stated and the same clearly discloses that a person who is lethargic and not diligent and there is an enormous delay of 4 years 11 months 19 days in preferring the appeal. When such unexplained delay is found, the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that delay is not explained properly and each day delay must be explained and the same is not done and hence dismissed the I.A.No.1. Consequently, dismissed the first appeal. When there was an inordinate delay in view of the judgment of the Apex Court recently held in 2025 in case of Shivamma, categorically held that whether the State or the private party, there cannot be a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46483 RSA No. 1002 of 2025 two yardstick and litigant must be diligent and he cannot sleep over for years. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54