- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2020 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. V.CHANDRAMMA D/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOSARUKUNTE MADDAKKANAHALLI POST GOWDAGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DSITRICT-572 131 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O K JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MARANAGERE VILLAGE GOWDAGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572131 2. K PUSHPA W/O K KARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YERS, 3. SRI VENKATARAMAIAH @ KODHANDARAMAIAH Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 S/O VENKATARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 4. SHARADAMMA W/O SRI VENKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 5. SRI SHESHAGIRIYAPPA S/O SRI VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 5 ARE R/O MOSARUKUNTE MADDAKKANAHALLI POST GOWDAGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 131 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.01.2020, NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R3 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN R.A.NO.35/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SIRA, TUMKUR ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.V. Harish, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the respondent in R.A. No.35/2014 challenging the Order dated 13.11.2019 condoning the delay of 9 years 23 days in filing the appeal. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of present revision petition are as under: 3.1 Present revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.46/1996 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Sira for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit properties. 4. Suit on contest came to be decreed in part on 07.10.2005. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 5. There was no proceedings between the decreeing of the suit and final decree proceedings being filed in the year 2014. When there was a notice received from the Court in the final decree proceedings, respondent herein was shocked to receive such a notice as there were talks of compromise according to the respondent. Immediately having learnt the intentions of the petitioner herein, respondents filed a belated appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sira in R.A. No.35/2014 with an application to condone the huge delay of 9 years 23 days in filing the appeal. 6. An application vide I.A.No.1 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay supported by the affidavit of the appellant- respondents. 7. An enquiry was held by the First Appellate Court on the application seeking condonation of delay and First Appellate Court exercised its' discretion and allowed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 I.A.No.1 inter alia holding in paragraph No.8 of its order as under: "ೕಲನಾರರ ೊ ೆ ಾವ ಾ ಾೊಳ ೇೆ ಎಂದು ೇ ೊಂಡು ಬಂ#ದ$%ಂದ ಅವರು ತಡಾ( ಈ ಅ*ೕಲು ಸ,-.ಾ$ೆ ಅಂದೆ /ಜ." 8. Obviously the First Appellate Court noted the answer elicited in the cross-examination of the revision petitioner as afore mentioned while condoning the delay. 9. Thus, reason assigned seeking condonation of delay having been admitted by the petitioner herein, I.A. was allowed. Operative portion of the Order of the First Appellate Court reads as under: "I.A. NO.1 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. Appeal is five year old. Appellant shall submit arguments on merits in the next date of hearing without fail. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 Parties are at liberty to file the written arguments. It is made clear that, no time/adjournment will be granted. Office to intimate the trial court to submit the records. Office shall verify if records not received within seven days after the intimation and shall write reminder immediately. Call on 10.12.2019." 10. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. 11. Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that the First Appellate Court grossly erred in condoning the huge delay of 9 years 23 days on an isolated admission of the petitioner herein, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 resulting in gross injustice and sought for allowing the revision of petition. 12. Per contra, Sri. H.V. Harish, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned order by contending that the reason assigned for the condonation of delay is admitted by the revision petitioner in categorical terms that too on oath and therefore the condonation of delay is justified. 13. Taking note of the rival contentions of the parties this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there was a belated appeal filed by respondent before the First Appellate Court. The delay is to the tune of 9 years 23 days. Reasons assigned by the respondents before the First Appellate Court is that there was a talk of compromise after the decree came to be passed in the year 2005. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 15. Such a reason when put it across to the revision petitioner while the revision petitioner was examined before the First Appellate Court as RW1, is admitted by the revision petitioner in categorical terms as referred to supra. 16. The argument put-forth on behalf of the revision petitioners that it is an isolated admission cannot be countenanced as in law as there is a categorical admission that there was talks of compromise. 17. It is pertinent to note that rights in respect of immovable properties are sought to be adjudicated in the appeal filed by the respondents before the First Appellate Court. 18. Thus, condonation of delay by the First Appellate Court by way of impugned order is thus justified. However, the cost imposed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.2,000/- is on the lower side. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41547 CRP No. 5 of 2020 19. Taking note of the fact that there is a huge delay, if the cost is increased by another Rs.23,000/- ends of justice would be met. 20. Accordingly, following order : ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the Order of condonation of delay, cost imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (Rs.2,000/- already imposed plus Rs.23,000/- by this Court). (iii) Payment of costs by the respondents is a condition precedent for further proceedings in the appeal before the First Appellate Court. Sd/- (V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18