- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149 RSA No. 101011 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101011 OF 2019 (MON) BETWEEN: HANAMANT S/O. SHIVAPPA KULAGOD AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SIDDHARAMESHWAR MEDICAL STORES, MUGALKHOD-587113, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: CHOUDHARI DRUG DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED BELAGAVI, REP. BY MR. RAJENDRA BALUSA CHOUDHARI, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590008. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.96/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:09.02.2016, PASSED IN O.S. NO.548/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.20 10:57:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149 RSA No. 101011 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed on I.A. No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the First Appellate Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.59,528/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the invoices till the date of actual payment, while came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in R.A. No.96/2019. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in preferring the appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149 RSA No. 101011 of 2019 4. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the First Appellate Court passed the order as under: “ORDER The I A No. 1 filed U/Sec 5 of Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed U/Sec 96 of CPC is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 548/2015 dated: 09-02-2016 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge. Belagavi, is hereby confirmed. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 04th day of July 2019.” 5. The appellant has filed I.A. No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 107 days, along with an affidavit in which he has stated that he has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 09-02-2016 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi, in O.S. No.548/2015. 6. He has further stated that the delay in preferring the appeal occurred due to his lack of knowledge about the procedure; he could not contact his counsel and furnish - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149 RSA No. 101011 of 2019 instructions to prefer the appeal at the relevant time. Hence, there was a delay of 107 days in filing this appeal. He has also stated that there was no negligence or laches on his part, that he has been diligent and is very much interested in prosecuting the proceedings, and that he has good grounds to succeed in the appeal. On all these grounds, he has sought for allowing the application. 7. The First Appellate Court, in paragraph 16 of its judgment, observed that the appellant herein had not led any evidence on I.A. No.1 or produced any material to justify the delay in preferring this appeal. On these grounds, the First Appellate Court rejected the application. 8. The impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court reveals that the respondent had not filed any objections to the I.A.No.1. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.1 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. However, the First Appellate Court rejected I.A. No.1, which is not sustainable in law. Considering the averments made in the affidavit supporting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149 RSA No. 101011 of 2019 I.A. No.1, it is just and proper to allow the said application. Accordingly, it is held that the First Appellate Court was not justified in rejecting I.A. No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. 9. For the aforesaid facts and discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court on I.A. No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is set aside. Consequently, and I.A. No.1 is allowed. Delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is condoned. iii. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits. iv. The First Appellate Court shall provide an opportunity to both parties submit their arguments - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12149 RSA No. 101011 of 2019 on the merits of the case. Thereafter, the appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with law. v. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the First Appellate Court for necessary action. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 77