- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597 RSA No. 100154 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100154 OF 2022 (SP-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUKAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SRI. NEELAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI, DIED ON 05-05-2015. 2. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. LATE NEELAPPA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, 3. SRI. DURGAMMA D/O. LATE NEELAPPA W/O. MALATESH, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, 4. SRI. VEERESH S/O. LATE NEELAPPA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. SMT. SUMEETRA D/O. LATE NEELAPPA W/O. NAGARAJ BARKI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, 6. SRI. UMESH S/O. LATE NEELAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 7. SHANKARAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 8. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA BARKI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 9. SMT. BASAVANNEVVA W/O. SANGAPPA BARKI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597 RSA No. 100154 of 2022 ALL ARE R/O. KAGINELLI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. AMANULLA S/O. IMAMSAB SOMASAGAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAGINELLI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI-581106. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.P. MURARI, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.08.2012 IN O.S. NO.60/2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) ITINERATE COURT, BYADGI, AND DISMISS THE SUIT O.S.NO.60/2007, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant No.1(A), challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2015 passed in RA No.82/2012 on the file of II - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597 RSA No. 100154 of 2022 Additional District Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur), (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2012 passed in OS No.60/2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Itinerate Court, Byadagi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. In this appeal, as there is a delay of 2035 days in filing the appeal, the appellants have filed IA No.1/2020, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and also I.A.No.1/2024, seeking permission to prosecute the appeal. 4. Having taken note of the reasons assigned by the appellants herein at paragraph No.2 of the affidavit accompanying with I.A.No.1/2020, I am of the view that, the reasons assigned by the appellants cannot be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597 RSA No. 100154 of 2022 considered as there is no sufficient cause and the appellants were not diligent in prosecuting the case. 5. As there is a delay of nearly 7 years in filing the appeal, the judgment referred by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jagan Singh1, and the issue involved in the said judgment is pertaining to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, in the present case the rights of the parties is crystallized by both the Courts below in a suit for specific performance and in that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union Of India2, wherein it is stated that, if the cause shown is insufficient, the delay cannot be condoned. 6. It is also to be noted that, it is not the length of delay but the cause of delay has to be considered by considering the application under Section 5 of the 1 2023 AIAR (Civil) 765 2 (2025) 1 SCC 625 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5597 RSA No. 100154 of 2022 Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Nagaland Vs. Lipok & Others3, I am of the view that, the reasons assigned by the appellants herein at paragraph No.2 of the affidavit accompanying with I.A.No.1/2020, cannot be accepted for condoning the delay nearly 7 years in filing the appeal. 7. Hence, appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM / CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 3 (2005) 5 SCC 752