- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6545 RSA No. 100531 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100531 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: NOORAHMED MASTANSAB KALEGAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SWING RIDER, R/O: BELLATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. NOW AT: HERUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DADAPEER MASTANSAB KALEGAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: BELLATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582101. 2. HANEEF MASTANSAB KALEGAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: BELLATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2007 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN), GADAG IN R.A.NO.02/2004 BY DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AWARDING COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6545 RSA No. 100531 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2007 in R.A.No.2/2004 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadag1 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003 in O.S.No.15/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Laxmeshwar2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Since there is a delay of 4470 days in filing the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to para Nos.5 to 7 of the affidavit filed in I.A.No.1/2019 and submitted that for the reasons stated above, delay has to be condoned. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6545 RSA No. 100531 of 2019 4. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application in I.A.No.1/2019. Undisputedly, the suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction which came to be decreed on 27.11.2003 in O.S.No.15/2002. The said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was questioned by the defendants before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.2/2004, which came to be allowed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2007. In that view of the matter, though the First Appellate Court has disposed the appeal during 2007, the present Regular Second Appeal is filed during 2019 after lapse of nearly 12 years. In that view of the matter, the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application cannot be considered as “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and further, the appellant herein was not diligent in pursuing the matter and therefore the reasons assigned in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6545 RSA No. 100531 of 2019 affidavit accompanying the application cannot be considered as “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay of more than 12 years. 5. In the result, I.A.No.1/2019 is dismissed following the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra vs. Union Of India reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625, as the appellant herein has not shown “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 12 years. 6. Consequently, the appeal fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10