- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17089 WP No. 106589 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.106589 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O DEVAPPA HEBBAL, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. NARGUND, DIST. GADAG-582 207. & PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O TIPPANNA KONERI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. MUSHTIGERI, TALUK. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 201. & RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/07/2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.I/2024 IN R.A. NO.34/2024 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT I BAGALKOTE VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION DATED 23/04/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE- C AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:48 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17089 WP No. 106589 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 25.07.2025 condoning the delay in filing the appeal. There was a delay of 2 years 3 months in filing the appeal in R.A.No.34/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff would submit that delay has not been properly explained. Despite appearance before the Trial Court through Advocate, the defendant/respondent has not contested the matter by filing written statement. Even after the service of notice in Execution Petition, he immediately did not file the appeal and the reasons are not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay. Thus, he would contend that order - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17089 WP No. 106589 of 2025 passed by the Appellate Court in condoning the delay has to be set-aside and appeal has to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant would submit that the decree is one for specific performance and the defendant had borrowed the loan and never agreed to sell the property; he offered the property as a security for the loan, same is wrongly styled as an 8agreement for sale9. Though he had engaged the Advocate, there was communication gap between himself and the Advocate, as such, the matter was not contested. Thus, he would contend that the delay has to be condoned and appeal has to be heard on merits. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. It is noticed that the suit is decreed ex-parte. Though the defendant appeared, did not contest the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17089 WP No. 106589 of 2025 matter. It is submitted that there was communication gap between the respondent and his Advocate. The reason so assigned is not convincing. However, considering the fact that the decree is for specific performance of the contract, the Appellate Court has taken a liberal view in condoning the delay by imposing cost of Rs.2,500/-. The said cost of Rs.2,500/- is wholly inadequate. 7. It is noticed that the plaintiff claims to have paid Rs.11,80,000/- to the defendant. The petitioner has contested the matter before the Trial Court and he is now made to approach this Court and made to approach the Appellate Court where the respondent is raising a contention that the decree is ex-parte. Taking all these factors into consideration, the order condoning the delay is upheld. However, the cost is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 8. Hence, the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17089 WP No. 106589 of 2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. Impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.1/2024 in R.A.No.34/2024, is upheld. However, the cost is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and the said cost shall be paid to the petitioner. iii. The appeal shall be heard on merits in accordance with law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 62