- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48739 CRP No. 167 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 167 OF 2018 (EX) BETWEEN: 1. C B RAJANI D/O LATE C BASAVARAJ W/O K R THEJASWI R/O "SRINIVASA KRUPA", 5TH CROSS,VIDYANAGAR, TUMAKURU CITY - 572 101 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. P N HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAMMA @ C RENUKA W/O LATE C BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O RENUKAMMA NILAYA, RENUKAMBA TEMPLE, GANDHIBAZAAR, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577 201 2. C GOPALA S/O LATE C PARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O GANDHIBAZAAR, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48739 CRP No. 167 of 2018 3. C B VINAYA S/O LATE C BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS C/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA R/O SANTEKADUR VILLAGE & POST 577 222 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT 4. C B VIVEKA S/O LATE C BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O RENUKAMMA NILAYA RENUKAMBA TEMPLE, GANDHIBAZAAR, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R4 R3 IS SERVED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN EX.NO.30/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SHIVAMOGGA HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO DELIVERY OF POSSESSION ON INTER-SE YEARLY TURN COMMENCING FROM, THE PEITITIONERS IN EX.NO.30/2015 WHEN THE TURN OF DECEASED BASAVARAJA COMES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48739 CRP No. 167 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. P.N. Harish, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 4. 2. One of the legal representatives of Sri. C. Basavaraj, namely the daughter Smt. C.B. Rajani is the Decree Holder who was Judgment debtor No.4/Objector No.4 in the Executing Court. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A decree came to be passed in O.S. No.856/1990 in respect of pooja rights of Guthyamma and Malyamma Temple at Shivamogga District. 3.2 The suit ended in granting pooja rights one year for Sri. C. Basavaraj and one year for Sri. R. Gopala. Elder - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48739 CRP No. 167 of 2018 brother Sri. Basavaraja died. Therefore the one year term of pooja rights has to be enjoyed by the legal representatives of Basavaraja on yearly turn basis. 3.3 In other words, all the legal representatives of Basavaraja have the pooja rights of both the temples among his legal representatives, whenever turn of Sri. Basavaraja would arise on the basis of the eldest child on the first day of first year and second child on the subsequent year, when Sri. Basavaraja's turn would come, that is alternate years between Sri. Basavaraja and second respondent Sri. Gopala, so on and so forth. 3.4 To execute such a decree, Basavaraja and Smt. Siddamma had filed an execution petition in Exhibit No.30/2015. 3.5 The learned Trial Judge in the Executing Court after entertaining the objections of all concerned and hearing the arguments, passed an Order on 02.05.2015 which reads as under. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48739 CRP No. 167 of 2018 "The petitioners are entitled to delivery of possession on inter-se yearly turn commencing from, the petitioners in Ex.No.30/2015, 38/2015 and 39/2015 respectively when the turn of deceased Basavaraja comes." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, fourth objector namely Smt. C.B. Rajini who is one of the daughters of Sri. Basavaraja has filed the present revision petition. 5. There is a delay of 978 days in filing such revision petition. 6. An application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 978 days supported by affidavit. 7. In the affidavit, said Smt. Rajini has stated that her brother was managing the rights and she was kept in dark about the fruits of the decree resulting in miscarriage of justice and soon she came to know about the mischief played by her brother, she has approached this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48739 CRP No. 167 of 2018 8. Respondents no.1 and 4 and respondent no.2 vehemently oppose the condonation of huge delay of 978 days for want of proper and sufficient reasons. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner is vague and bald and would not fit into the framework of the phrase "sufficient cause" as is contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 11. Therefore, per se the delay is not properly explained and reasons assigned need to be rejected. 12. Having said so, the right of the petitioner cannot be lost sight of in view of the decree. 13. While disposing of the revision petition on the ground of delay, this Court is thus compelled to observe that the present petitioner would also get a right in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48739 CRP No. 167 of 2018 Hierarchy among the children of Sri. Basavaraja whenever his turn to perform the pooja comes and to seek necessary Orders. 14. If such an application is filed by the petitioner when her turn comes among the legal representatives of Sri. Basavaraja to perform pooja to Guthyamma and Malyamma Devi temple. 15. Having said thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application seeking coordination of delay needs to be rejected. 16. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) I.A.No.1/2018 is rejected. (ii) Consequently, revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT-SG