- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL RSA NO.100729 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: B. BHEEMANAIK S/O. CHANDRANAIK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI THANDA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. L. BHEEMA NAIK S/O. HEERANAIK, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. 2. L NEELYA NAIK S/O. LACHHA NAIK, AGED ABOUT: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER CUM SCRETARY SRI SEVALAL BANAJAR VIDYA SAMSTHE RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. 3. L BHEEMA NAIK S/O. NANYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 4. L BHEEMA NAIK S/O. DYAVA NAIK, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. 5. D OMYANAIK S/O. DEVLAYNAIK, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT KANDIKERE TANDA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. 6. THE DISTRICT REGISTER OF SOCIETIES AND FIRMS BINNY COMPANY ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. 7. L RAMACHANDRANAIK S/O. SOMLANAIK, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. 8. L TEKYANAIK S/O. HAMYANAIK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT ITTIGUDI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT – 583 201. 9. L UMESHNAIN S/O. LOKYANAIK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MACHIHALLI TANDA HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT – 583 102. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2018 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI IN R.A.NO.4/2018 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2015 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE, HARAPANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.86/2009 AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd August 2015, passed in O.S. No.86/2009 by the Civil Judge, Harapanahalli (for short “the trial Court”) by which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The said dismissal of the suit was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 23rd July 2018 passed in R.A. No.4/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli (for short “the First Appellate Court”). 2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration and a consequential relief of perpetual injunction, challenging the proceedings of the General Body Meeting and the elections of the Members held during 2003-04 and 2007-08, with respect to Sri Sevalal Banajara (Lambani) Education Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 3. A written statement was filed to the said suit on the grounds that there was no cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation. 4. The trial Court framed the issues and additional issues for its consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the list submitted by the defendant No.1 to 4 before the defendant No.6 is illegal as proved as per the majority in the meeting held on 29-04- 2007? 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants No. 1 to 5 as alleged in the plaint? 3. Whether defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable as the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. Whether defendants prove that the defendant has not complied the provisions of Sec.80(1) of CPC? 5. Whether defendants prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 6 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for? 7. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE 1) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable as no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to institute the suit against the defendants? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 5. The trial Court treated the additional issue as a preliminary issue, answered it in the affirmative, and consequently dismissed the suit as not maintainable by the impugned judgment and decree. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.4/2018 before the First Appellate Court. 7. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration. 1. Whether judgment and decree passed by the trial court is perverse, illegal capricious one sided and interference of this appellate court is necessary? 2. Whether trial court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in a proper prospective manner? 3. What order? 8. On re-appreciation, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently dismissed the said appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court, plaintiff No.1 has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 10. There is a delay of 1415 days in filing the present appeal, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed along with an affidavit seeking condonation of the inordinate delay. 11. It is contended that the appellant’s financial difficulties prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court, while taking note of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.13198/2007, dated 18.06.2008 and the order dated 26.03.2009 in W.A. No.1168/2009, observed that liberty had been reserved to the plaintiffs to seek recourse under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Since the Act provides an effective remedy under Section 25 of the Act, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the suit was not maintainable. However, the appellant has approached this Court, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 challenging the aforesaid findings and conclusions of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, with a delay of 1415 days. 12. Heard. Perused the records. 13. The appellant appears to be espousing the cause concerning the management and administration of the Society, which is governed by the Special Legislation namely the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, which aspect of the matter was duly considered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition and writ appeal. No error can be found in that regard. 14. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application reveals that it only refers to the appellant’s alleged financial constraints in approaching the Court. Further, the application fails to establish sufficient cause as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in approaching the Court by filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation to justify the condonation of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8451 RSA No. 100729 of 2024 the inordinate delay of 1415 days. Condonation of delay is a discretionary power, and in the absence of any justifiable cause shown by the appellant, this Court finds no reason to condone the said inordinate delay. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45