- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 3378 OF 2022 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. C.G. RAJENDRA S/O. SRI. C.M. GIRIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SRI MALLESH PRABHU S/O. LATE SRI. C.G. RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.89-C, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU - 570 023 REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER, SMT. SUCHITRA C.R W/O. SRI. MANOHAR M.P AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.508, 6TH CROSS 'H' BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 022 2. SMT. SUCHITRA C.R. W/O SRI. MANOHAR M.P. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.508, 6TH CROSS 'H' BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 022 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 2. GUNDLUPET TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD, (TAPCMS) GUNDLUPET CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 313 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SRI. B. KUMARASWAMY S/O. LATE SRI. BELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.121, "KUSHALADHAMA" DIVISION NO.1 WARD NO.3, GUNDLUPET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313 4. SMT. VIMALA M.C. W/O LATE SRI. C.G. RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.89-C, 2ND STAGE KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU - 570 023 PRESENTLY RESIDING IN SAN RAMON COLIFORNIA USA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. J. MANJUNATHESWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R2 SD, V/O DT. 4/3/22 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.12.2021 PASSED BY THE KAT IN APPEAL NO.248/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT BEFORE THE KAT IN APPEAL NO.248/2015 AND DIRECT THE KAT BENGALURU TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL NO.248/2015 ON MERITS AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being the legal representatives of one late C.G.Rajendra, are before this Court impugning the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the KAT') in Appeal No.248/2015 produced as per Annexure - A, dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as barred by limitation and directing KAT to consider the Appeal No.248/2015 on merits. 2. Heard Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Chandini S, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. J.Manjunatheswar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioners are the wife and children of C.G.Rajendra, against whom, an enquiry was held alleging that he along with respondent No.3 - Kumaraswamy misappropriated an amount of Rs.62,90,635/-. An enquiry was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 held by respondent No.1 and the order came to be passed as per Annexure - B, holding that misappropriation of the above said amount of Rs. 62,90,635.44/- is proved against Kumaraswamy - Respondent No.3 herein and C.G.Rajendra, i.e., the husband/ father of the petitioners. Therefore, an award came to be passed jointly and severally against both of them for the above said amount. 4. It is also ordered that, if they fail to make good the loss by paying the amount, the properties which are subject to attachment before judgment dated 04.01.1997 are to be attached to recover the amount. Admittedly, C.G.Rajendra under whom, the petitioners are claiming had never challenged the said award passed by respondent No.1. Subsequently, C.G.Rajendra died on 21.07.2015. 5. It is now the contention of the petitioners that they are succeeded to the properties left by C.G.Rajendra. The society issued Annexure -C dated 25.07.2015 calling upon the petitioners to repay the amount. It is thereafter, the petitioners have approached the KAT by preferring the appeal with an application to condone the delay. The KAT by passing Annexure - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 - A dismissed the application, as no sufficient grounds are made-out to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since Annexure - C notice was issued to the petitioners, they have the cause of action to challenge the order Annexure - B, and the KAT could not have dismissed the application without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel submitted that there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. He placed reliance on the decisions in Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari and another1 and also N. Balakrishnan Vs. Krishnamurthy2 to contend that the delay is to be considered in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the cause of action for preferring the appeal is Annexure - C, the KAT should have condoned the delay and taken the appeal for consideration. 1 AIR 1969 SC 575 2 AIR 1998 SC 3222 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 8. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent No.3 - Kumaraswamy against whom, order Annexure - B came to be passed along with C.G.Rajendra, has approached KAT by preferring the Appeal No.706/2012. The same is still pending consideration. Under such circumstances, KAT should have considered the appeal preferred by petitioners on merits. 9. Admittedly, C.G.Rajendra, who died on 21.07.2015 had never challenged Annexure - B passed against him, which is dated 31.08.2012. Even though, respondent No.3, who is also a party against whom such an order was passed, has preferred an appeal in 706/2012 before KAT. Therefore, the order Annexure B passed against C.G.Rajendra reached finality without any challenge. 10. Now it is the contention of the petitioners that since Annexure - C dated 25.07.2015 is served on them, it has given raise to a cause of action. 11. Annexure - D is the memorandum of appeal preferred by the petitioners before KAT. The grounds urged in the said appeal disclose that the petitioners have taken the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 contention that C.G.Rajendra was over burdened with work and he was not able to give much attention to his work in the Society. It is only respondent No.3 - Kumaraswamy, who is solely responsible for misappropriation of the stock and food grains and also the funds of the society and not late C.G.Rajendra. 12. It is also contended that C.G.Rajendra never misappropriated any amount. But however, Annexure - B came to be passed jointly against him as well as against respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 has not taken into consideration, any of the admitted findings of the inspecting officer, who held an inspection and proceeded to pass the order as per Annexure - B. Therefore, the petitioners contended that Annexure - B is liable to be set aside. 13. When C.G.Rajendra against whom Annexure - B came to be passed on 31.08.2012, he has accepted the order without challenging the same, till his death i.e., on 21.07.2015, the grounds urged in Annexure - B are not available for the petitioners being the legal representatives of the late C.G.Rajendra, who suffered the order without any demur. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 Simply because, respondent No.3 herein has challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before KAT, which is pending in Appeal No.706/2012, cannot be a ground to permit the petitioners to file and maintain the appeal. 14. The impugned order Annexure - B, is passed jointly and severally against C.G.Rajendra, who is now deceased and respondent No.3 - Kumaraswamy and also against the properties which are the subject matter of the attachment before judgment. The petitioners have not stated anything about the said properties left behind by late C.G.Rajendra. It is not the contention of the petitioners that any properties belonging to the petitioners were subjected to attachment before the judgment. When no such grounds are made-out, the petitioners are not entitled to raise the dispute by preferring an appeal, which C.G.Rajendra had never chosen to do. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioners before KAT seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal cannot be allowed for any reason. I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioners. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48525 WP No. 3378 of 2022 15. I have gone through the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Both these decisions are rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court under different set of facts and they are not applicable to the facts in the present case. Under such circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12