- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32601 RSA No. 945 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 945 OF 2020 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI P. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O MEDARA BEEDI N.R. PURA TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN - 577 134 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH K.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DAYALU K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAGHAVENDRA N G S/O LATE GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT T.B. ROAD, N.R. PURA TONW AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTICT PIN - 577 134 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. YASHODAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED IN RA.No.18/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2018 PASSED IN OS.No.9/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA. Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32601 RSA No. 945 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri. Prakash K.R. for Sri. Dayalu K.N. learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Yashodhar Shetty for Sri. Nataraja Ballal A., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Along with appeal, I.A.No.1/2020 is filed to condone the delay of 262 days in filing the second appeal. In support of the application, an affidavit is filed sworn to by the appellant. Paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit reads as under: "I submit that I am aged about 65 years and I am illiterate, except signing in Kannada, I do not have any worldly knowledge. at no point of time, I had come to Bangalore and in addition, I have financial problem and hence for all these reasons I could not able to entrust the matter to my counsel at Bangalore. Hence, for the reasons stated supra, there is delay of 262 days in filing the above appeal. I have got good case on merits and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32601 RSA No. 945 of 2020 hence, opportunity may be given to me to agitate the matter before this Hon'ble Court. Hence, it is apt and necessary that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 262 days in filing the above appeal and may be proceeded with the matter in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The reasons assigned in paraghaph No.3 of the affidavit are not satisfactory to condone the huge delay of 262 days in filing the appeal inasmuch as the appellant all along contested the suit, he has stepped into witness box, deposed before the Court. 4. Therefore, the reason that he has no worldly knowledge for filing of belated appeal cannot be countenanced in law. 5. Further, Court fee paid on the appeal memo is only Rs.25/-. Therefore, the second reason of financial difficulty in not filing the appeal in time cannot also be countenanced in law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32601 RSA No. 945 of 2020 6. Moreover, if the appellant had any real difficulty as to the service of proper advocate or financial problem, he could have very well approached the Legal Services Authority in time and should have sought for necessary advice as well as the financial assistance by requesting the Legal Services Authority that he has no financial capacity to engage the counsel and to pay the Court fee. No such effort has been made. 7. Under such circumstances, the reason assigned in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit referred to supra are bald and vague and not sufficient to condone huge delay of 262 days. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following Order: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32601 RSA No. 945 of 2020 ORDER (i) I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed. (ii) Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27