- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5393 RSA No. 100942 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100942 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. THAYAVVA W/O. MAHANTAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SULLAYYA, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580023. 2. RUDRAVVA W/O. PAKIRAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580023. 3. SMT. GURUDEVI W/O. ESHWARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNCHIKATTI, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-581113. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PARAVVA W/O. NINGAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SRI. SOMAYYA S/O. NINGAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SMT. KALLAVVA W/O. IRAYYA MATAPATI, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5393 RSA No. 100942 of 2022 AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SRI. BASAYYA S/O. IRAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SMT. IRAVVA D/O. IRAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 6. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. BASAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 7. IRAYYA S/O. MALLAYYA PUJAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAMADHENU, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 8. NAGARAJ S/O. IRAYYA PUJAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAMADHENU, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 9. PRAVEEN S/O. IRAYYA PUJAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAMADHENU, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 10. SRI. MANOHAR S/O. NINGAPPA MORE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JAGADALLI ONI, NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 11. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. MANOHAR MORE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JAGADALE ONI, NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5393 RSA No. 100942 of 2022 12. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. IRAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 13. SRI. RUDRAYYA S/O. SOMAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD. 14. IRAVVA W/O. MAHANTAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YALLIWAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580023. 15. SMT. GEETA D/O. SANGAYYA MATAPATI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YALIVAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-581113. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO THAT JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.112/2012 ON THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.06.2012, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN O.S. NO.356/2006 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH THE COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5393 RSA No. 100942 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs No.1(b) to 1(d) challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2014 in R.A.No.112/2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Dharwad1 allowing the appeal in part and modifying the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2012 in O.S.No.356/2006 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. There is a delay of 2152 days in filing the appeal and hence, I.A.No.1/2022 is filed seeking condonation of 2152 days delay in filing the appeal. 3. Having taken note of the reasons assigned by the appellants to condone the inordinate delay of 7 years in filing the appeal, I am of the view that the appellants have not shown ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay of 7 years in filing the appeal. It is well settled principle in 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5393 RSA No. 100942 of 2022 law that it is not the length of delay but the cause of the delay has to be considered in the light of the judgment in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 and also recently the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625. The appellants were not diligent and slept over the matter without cause and therefore the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application is not bonafide reasons. 4. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, I am of the view that the reasons assigned by the appellants herein cannot be accepted as sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16