- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52220 RSA No. 271 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.271 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SWAMYNAYAKA S/O CHELUVANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,. 2. SRI. MALLESHA NAYAKA, S/O CHELUVANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BOODITHITTU VILLAGE PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI KARINAIKA S/O LATE NINGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAJANAIKA, S/O LATE NINGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. SRI. NARYANANAIKA S/O LATE NINGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52220 RSA No. 271 of 2025 4. SRI. UDAYANAIKA, S/O LATE NINGANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT HONNEKOPPALU VILLAGE, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU - 571107. 5. SRI.B.K.RAJEGOWDA, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 6. SRI.B.K.SHIVANNA, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT BOREHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU - 571107. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED IN RA NO.1/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.216/2018 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52220 RSA No. 271 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is called twice in the morning session and also in the afternoon session, but no representation on behalf of the appellants. 2. This second appeal is filed with delay of 1015 days. Having perused the records, impugned judgment of First Appellate Court was passed on 25.02.2020. This appeal is filed on 19.02.2025, almost after 5 years of passing of the judgment and reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of the application that when the disposal of the suit was intimated to them, in the meantime, his son met with a road traffic accident and sustained injury to the lower limb. He was admitted to Hospital in Mysore for few days and after his discharge, taking care of him, since his lower limb was injured and in the meantime, the Government has announced the lockdown and also in the meantime, 1st appellant suffered from viral fever and thereafter it was diagnosed as jaundice and took the treatment in the village and approached the counsel in November-2024 and there was a delay. In support of this affidavit, he has not produced any document with regard to his son met with an accident and took treatment and in the affidavit, it is stated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52220 RSA No. 271 of 2025 that he took the treatment only for few days, but delay from 2020 to 2025 is not explained and no sufficient cause is shown and even 1st appellant was suffering from jaundice and to that effect also no document is placed before this Court and 2nd appellant being the plaintiff No.2 has not approached the Court for filing the appeal and suit of the plaintiff was decreed granting permanent injunction and the same is set-aside by the First Appellate Court. Even inspite of the same, not taken any initiative to file the appeal and reasons assigned is not sufficient and no sufficient cause is shown. Hence, the grounds which have been urged for condonation of delay of 1015 days in filing the appeal is not satisfactory. The Apex Court in the judgment of Shivamma’s case, categorically held that if the delay is not explained with sufficient cause, question of considering the appeal on merits does not arise and no ground is made out to condone the delay. Hence, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35