- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28835 RSA No. 326 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: K.P. VENKATARAMU, S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O BASATTIKOPPALU, HASSAN - 573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOPAL S/O LATE KESHAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS KESHAVEGOWDA DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2. SANNAMMA W/O LATE KESHAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 3. SURESHA S/O LATE KESHAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. DEVANANDA S/O LATE KESHAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O SRINIDHI BOOK CENTER, Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28835 RSA No. 326 of 2024 BUDDAH MARGA, VIDYANAGARA,, HASSAN CITY - 573 201. 5. SATHISHA S/O LATE KESHAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O CHANNAKESHAVA PROVISION STORES OPP. MANJUNATHESWARA PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, VIVEKANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATHISH S.P, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.45/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN OS No.231/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 484 days in filing the second appeal. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present application are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28835 RSA No. 326 of 2024 A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.231/2008 seeking an order of injunction against the respondents complaining that the respondents without leaving the set back area, constructing the building in their property against the building bye laws and the conditions of sanction of plan and license. 4. The suit on contest came to be dismissed by considered judgment dated 30.04.2015. 5. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.45/2015. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 01.08.2022, dismissed the appeal on merits. 7. It has been held by the First Appellate Court that there is a conservancy in between the properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that defendant No.1 had constructed his house - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28835 RSA No. 326 of 2024 leaving the set back area and to appreciate the same, he has taken into consideration that the usage of light and air is not affected by the defendants constructing a structure in their property. 8. Being further aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed belatedly. 9. There is a huge delay of 484 days in filing the present appeal. An affidavit is filed in support of the application. Affidavit does not disclose any specific reason as to the cause of delay except stating that the appellant could not meet the lawyer as he was suffering from illness and when he was cured from the illness, he contacted the lawyer and came to know about the dismissal of the appeal. So also, he is a poor person. Due to poverty, he could not approach the High Court immediately. 10. Reasons assigned are vague without there being any specific details as to the nature of illness that the appellant was suffering from. No medical records are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28835 RSA No. 326 of 2024 furnished along with the appeal. So also for filing the appeal, what was the finance required and said amount was not available with the appellant is not substantiated. 11. Taking note of the same, huge delay of 484 days cannot be condoned. More so, having regard to the fact that there is a concurrent finding and there lies conservancy between properties of appellant and respondents. 12. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: BHK