- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100041 OF 2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SHRI PRABHAKAR S/O. MAHADEV CHIPKAR AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. 1ST CROSS, SADHANKERI, DHARWAD, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD-580008 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SHRIKANT S/O. MAHADEV CHIPKAR AGE. 79 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. ANJALI KRUPA BUILDING, VIJAYANAGAR, 3RD CROSS, KELGERI ROAD, DHARWAD, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD-580008. 2. MOHAN S/O. MAHADEV CHIPKAR (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS) SMT. VARSHA W/O. RAJESH DHULAPHAR AGE.51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.04.19 11:27:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 R/O. B7/F3, MILROC-WOOD, CORLIM,GOA-403110. 3. SMT. PRACHITI D/O. MOHAN CHIPKAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOUSE NO.1181 @ VOLVONEM HANUMAN TEMPLE, POST TIVIM, GOA-403502. 4. SMT. ARPITA W/O. ADITYA CHIPKAR AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOUSE NO.1181 @ VOLVONEM HANUMAN TEMPLE, POST TIVIM, GOA-403502. 5. SHRI ASHOK S/O. MAHADEV CHIPKAR AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. KAMALESHWAR NILAYA BUILDING, H.NO.2462A/22, TAMSE WADA, KODALBAG, KARWAR-581303. 6. SHRI ARVIND S/O MAHADEV CHIPKAR AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. HOUSE NO.1103, PLOT NO. DK-1, SATSHKAR BUILDING, GOKULWADI, SANQELIM, GOA-403505. 7. SHRI SAINATH S/O. MAHADEV CHIPKAR AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. HOUSE NO.1103, PLOT NO. DK-1, SATSHKAR BUILDING, GOKULWADI, SANQELIM, GOA-403505. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 8. SHRI GOPAL S/O. MAHADEV CHIPKAR AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED R/O. SAPNATTI APARTMENTS 3RD FLOOR, 1ST GOLAGHATTA-CALCUTTA-700048. 9. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. SHASHIKANT KALGUTKAR AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KADAR ROAD, KARWAR-581303. 10. SMT. USHA W/O. ASHOK PEDNEKAR AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. GYANBAGI LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, NARAYANPUR, DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.P.MURARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2021 IN O.S.NO.429/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM. DHARWAD. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) There is a delay of 978 days in filing the appeal insofar as property bearing CTS No.41/F measuring 8 guntas 45 yards situated at 1st cross, Sadankeri, Dharwad. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the application filed under I.A. No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 978 days in filing this appeal. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Upon meticulous consideration of the submissions made and the material placed on record, we find no justification for such an inordinate delay of nearly three years in preferring this appeal. It is a settled position of law that limitation is not a mere technicality but a substantive principle of law, designed to ensure finality to litigation and to prevent stale claims from being resurrected at the convenience of litigants. The delay in the present case is not only considerable but unexplained in a manner that satisfies the threshold of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 3. The respondents – plaintiffs, in the connected appeal RFA No.100159/2023, filed I.A. No.2/2025 seeking modification of the interim order dated 04.12.2024, contending that the urban property bearing CTS No.41/F, which is not a subject matter of that appeal, was wrongly covered under the interim protection granted therein. This application was filed on 10.02.2025. The appellant, instead of addressing the content of I.A. No.2/2025 on its merits within the scope of the connected appeal, has chosen to institute this separate appeal in RFA No.100041/2025, belatedly and clearly as a counterblast to the said application seeking modification. This sequence of events, when carefully scrutinized, suggests a deliberate strategy by the appellant to frustrate the efforts of the plaintiffs in executing the final decree with respect to the urban property which was never under genuine dispute in the pending appeal RFA No.100159/2023. 4. Although learned counsel for the appellant has urged this Court to adopt a liberal approach, relying on the well-established principle that courts should lean towards adjudication on merits rather than technical dismissal, it is equally well-settled that "law of limitation must be applied with - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 all its rigour when prescribed by statute". (Refer: Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 10 SCC 765). The record reveals that there was no serious challenge to the preliminary decree concerning the urban property CTS No.41/F at any stage prior to the filing of the present appeal. The only appeal filed earlier in RFA No.100159/2023 was directed exclusively against issues arising out of agricultural lands. The absence of any attempt to either amend the earlier appeal or seek clarification therein further fortifies our view that the present appeal is not borne out of a bona fide grievance, but is filed with the sole intent of defeating the application seeking modification of interim orders. 5. The conduct of the appellant leaves much to be desired. Filing the present appeal almost three years belatedly, without even a semblance of plausible explanation, while simultaneously resisting the modification application in the connected appeal, reveals the mala fide intent behind this litigation. The appellant cannot be permitted to misuse the process of law to stall the lawful execution of decree by the plaintiffs. Equity does not assist those who sleep over their - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 rights, and the appellant, having failed to challenge the decree regarding urban property within time, cannot now be heard to complain when the plaintiffs seek to execute it. 6. It is evident that the present appeal [RFA No.100041/2025] has been instituted only as a reactionary measure, triggered by the plaintiffs’ filing of I.A. No.2/2025 seeking modification of the interim order in RFA No.100159/2023. If the appellant had any genuine grievance regarding the preliminary decree insofar as the urban property was concerned, the proper course would have been to raise it at the appropriate time, either through timely appeal or by amendment of pleadings in the earlier appeal. Their failure to do so, and the sudden emergence of this appeal post the plaintiffs' application, demonstrates a strategic misuse of legal process, not a bona fide assertion of legal right. 7. Having regard to the above and keeping in mind the paramount importance of limitation law in ensuring certainty and preventing abuse of process, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Allowing such belated appeals would not only set a wrong precedent but would also seriously prejudice - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6105-DB RFA No. 100041 of 2025 the plaintiffs, who are rightfully seeking to enforce a final decree after prolonged litigation. 8. Accordingly, the application filed in I.A. No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 978 days is rejected. As a necessary consequence, the application in I.A. No.3/2025 seeking leave to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record is also rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 0