- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30421 RSA No. 1904 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1904 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. H. HAFIULLA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(A). JAINABI SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 1. AZZEJA BANU, W/O MUSTHAFA K D/O LATE H. SHAFIULLA 4TH CROSS, BETHUR ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 2. SRI. H.S. SYED AHMED, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE. H SHAFIULLA, HOLALKERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526. 3. REHAMATHUNUISA W/O ABDUL HAFIZ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O. LATE. H SHAFIULLA, KHAZI MOHALLA, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30421 RSA No. 1904 of 2021 4. SRI. H.S. SYED MEHAMMOD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O. LATE. H SHAFIULLA, HAOALKERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526. 5. SYED SALEEM UNNISA, AGED AOUT 38 YEARS, W/O. NOORULLA, SIGEBAGI VILLAGE, SYED COLONY, BHADRAVATHI TOWN, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301. 6. SYEDA BANU W/O. LATE JAKIR HUSSAIN, D/O. LATE H. SHAFIULLA, JALINAGARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 7. SYED MALANA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE. H SHAFIULLA, HOLALKERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. R. KESHAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. RAMANNA, NEAR BHARATH TALKIES, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30421 RSA No. 1904 of 2021 NEAR T.A.P.C.M.S, HOLALERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526. …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025, RESPONDENT CALLED OUT, ABSENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED IN RA NO. 10/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2007 PASSED IN OS NO.35/2006 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), HOLALKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs - appellants are in this appeal. The present appeal is filed belatedly and there is a huge delay of 347 days in filing the present appeal. 3. According to the office even after giving deduction to the COVID period of 497 days, there is 347 days delay in filing the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30421 RSA No. 1904 of 2021 4. Affidavit in support of the application seeking the condonation of delay is as bald as anything inasmuch as there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the appellants as to why they did not apply for issue of certified copy between the period of 31.10.2018 to 30.01.2019. 5. Further, according to the deponent, he suffered slip disk in the lower back in January, 2019 and he had severe spinal problem and as such he was advised to take bed rest for a period of one year. 6. It is also contended that he had to spend huge money for the medical treatment. Being the persons belonging to the downtrodden, the appellants had also suffered financial problem and therefore, they could not file the appeal in time. 7. It is further contended that in the first week of July 2021, he visited the Office of the Advocate and thereafter they have filed the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30421 RSA No. 1904 of 2021 8. To support the said contentions of the appellant 1(c), namely Syed Ahmed, that he was suffering from severe spinal problem on account of slip disk, no medical records are placed on record, nor any material is placed on record to show that there was a severe financial crisis for the appellants. 9. It is also to be noted that the original plaintiff was no more and his legal representatives were already included before the first appellate court. 10. If the deponent namely, Syed Ahmed was suffering from ill health, what prevented the other legal representatives of the original plaintiff to approach the advocate and get the appeal prepared is not even spelled out in the affidavit. 11. As such, the reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of IA 1/2021 is not satisfactory. Therefore, huge delay of 347 days even after deducting the 497 days in the COVID period cannot be condoned. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30421 RSA No. 1904 of 2021 12. Accordingly, the following - ORDER IA No.1/2021 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK