- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2013 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NANJAPPA S/O LATE SRI HARUVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YERS R/A NO.17, 9TH CROSS IST MAIN ROAD, KALYANA NAGAR T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560057 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C S PRASANNA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O DODDAHANUMANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A INAHALLI VILLAGE, MAJARA KASAAGHATTA DODDABELLAVANGALA HOBALI, DODDA HEJJAJE POST,DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T H CHIKKAVENKATE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 20.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.141/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 8.3.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.186/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DODDABALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order on IA.No.2 dated 20.11.2012 passed in R.A.No.141/2012 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court, Doddaballapura. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. 3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the respondent is the owner of the suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 schedule property and has agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and the plaintiff has paid Rs.5,90,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount would be paid at the time of registration of a sale deed. The defendant executed a sale agreement dated 14.05.2002 in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant has failed to perform his part of contract. The defendant committed a breach of contract. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 31.07.2009, calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. The defendant replied to the legal notice denying the averments made in the legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and denied that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and received Rs.5,90,000/- as a advance sale consideration amount and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount at the time of registration of a sale deed. It is contended that the plaintiff got created the alleged sale deed and filed the present suit. It is also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. 1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant is the owner of land Sy.No.117/1 measuring 39 guntas and in land Sy.No.117/2 measuring 20 guntas and in land Sy.No.116/6 measuring 5 guntas situated at Kasaghatta of Doddaballapur Taluk and agreed to sell the schedule properties in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- out of which received an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- witnesses and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 executed an agreement of sale dated 14.05.2002? 2. Whether plaintiff further prove that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 3. Whether suit is time barred? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought by him? 5. What Order or Decree? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. In rebuttal, the defendant examined herself as DW1, examined one witness as DW2 and marked 9 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9. 7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.2 and 4 in the negative, issue Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, issue No.5 as per the final order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 8. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.03.2012. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.186/2009, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.141/2012 along with an application i.e., IA.No.2, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 14 days in preferring the appeal on the file of the Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur. 9. The First Appellate Court rejected the IA.No.2 vide order dated 20.11.2012 and consequently dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order on IA.No.2 dated 20.11.2012, passed in R.A.No.141/2012, filed this regular second appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that there was a delay of 14 days in filing an appeal. The plaintiff has shown a sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal well within time. He submits that due to ill-health, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 the plaintiff could not contact his advocate and give instructions for him to present the appeal. Thus the delay has been caused. 12. To buttress his arguments, he has placed the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land acquisition V/s Master katiji and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107. He submits that while considering an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court would be liberal in condoning the delay. He also submits that there is no inordinate delay in filing an appeal. The first appellate Court rejected the application IA.No.2 on technical grounds. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has not shown a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 14 days in preferring an appeal. He submits that the first appellate Court was justified in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 rejecting IA.No.2 and consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. This Court vide order dated 03.07.2025 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law. "Whether the first appellate Court was justified in rejecting IA.No.2 on the ground that the appellant has not shown a sufficient cause despite having shown a sufficient cause for preferring an appeal?" 15. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. 16. In rebuttal, the defendant examined herself as DW1, examined one witness as DW2 and marked 9 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 17. The trial Court, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.141/2012, along with an application IA.No.2, for condonation of delay of 14 days in preferring an appeal. Though, the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff was suffering from illness and he has produced a medical certificate, which discloses that, the doctor had advised him to take a bed rest. The said fact has not been denied by the defendant. 18. Though the plaintiff has shown a sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within time as the plaintiff was suffering from an ailment and the doctor had advised him to take a bed rest, the first appellate Court, without considering the medical certificate issued by the doctor, has rejected an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff has shown a sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal well within time. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of the Collector of Land acquisition V/s Master katiji and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, held as follows; "Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 20. As per the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application for condonation of delay should be considered liberally and should condone the delay. Considering the proposition laid down by the Honb'ble Apex Court in case of Collector of Land acquisition V/s Master katiji and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the first appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay of 14 days in preferring the appeal, on the contrary, it rejected IA.No.2. 21. The order passed on IA.No.2 by the first appellate Court is contrary to the medical records - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has shown a sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal well within time. In view of the above discussions, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative. 22. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The order on IA.No.2 dated 20.11.2022 passed in R.A.No.144/2012 on the file of Fast Track Court, Doddaballapura, is set aside. 3. Accordingly, IA.No.2 filed by the plaintiff is allowed. Delay of 14 days is condoned in preferring the appeal. 4. The R.A.No.141/2012 is restored to its original file. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24352 RSA No. 151 of 2013 5. The first Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both parties. 6. This Court has not made any adjudication on the merits in issue. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 7. The office is directed to transmit the records to the first appellate Court. 8. The office is directed to refund the court fee in favour of the appellant, as per Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fee Valuation Act, 1958. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1