- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9939 WP No. 102337 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.102337 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI ANNAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BALI, AGE: 79 YEARS OCC: DOCTOR R/O. VIDYA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH S HIREMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI CHANNABASAPPA S/O SHIDRAMAPPA SANAGI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. FAKEERAWWA W/O SHIVANAPPA BENAKATTI AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KALMESHWAR NAGAR, KANGRALI BK BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. ADIVEPPA SANAGI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: VIDYA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL TQ: BAILHONGAL, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 102. 3. SHRI MAHANTESH S/O. CHANNABASAPPA SANAGI, AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INDIRA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL TQ: BAILHONGAL, TQ DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI., ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9939 WP No. 102337 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED. 12.12.2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BAILHONAL ON IA NO. 1 IN RA NO. 20/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-G. AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated: 12.12.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal on I.A.No.1 in RA.No.20/2022 vide Annexure-G. ii. Pass any other order as deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.11 of 2015, which came to be decreed on 20.12.2019, in pursuance of which an execution proceeding in E.P. No.16 of 2019 was initiated on 15.07.2019. When the execution petition was pending, the defendant/JDR expired on 06.07.2020. In that view of the matter, an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9939 WP No. 102337 of 2025 application under Order 22 of Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC had been filed in E.P.No.16 of 2019 on 21.01.2021, on which notice had been issued; the said notice had been returned unclaimed. Thereafter, a Commissioner was appointed on 30.03.2022, who visited the property. 3. Claiming that it is at that stage that they came to know about the said decree, the respondent-herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased defendant, had filed RA No.20 of 2022, challenging the decree, and also filed an application in IA No.I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 1165 days in preferring the appeal. 4. The said delay was calculated on the basis of the date of the judgement dated 20.12.2018, however the respondent had categorically indicated that they were not aware of the decree having been passed, since they were not parties to said suit and further that their knowledge of the said decree came about - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9939 WP No. 102337 of 2025 only when the commissioner visited the property and as such there being no delay, even if there is a delay alleged of 1165 days the same is required to be condoned. Accepting the said reasons after evidence was led, the First Appellate Court condoned the delay by way of a detailed order. 5. Taking into consideration that the father of the respondent had expired on 06.07.2020 even the application for bringing legal heirs on record in the pending Execution Petition was filed by the Decree Holder on 07.02.2022, the appeal in RA No.20 of 2022 had been filed by the respondents on 30.05.2022 all of which are contemporaneous to each other, I am the considered opinion that there is no particular delay on the part of respondents, they have filed the appeal as early as possible, immediately on coming to known of the decree having been passed and execution proceedings being pending which they came to know upon the Commissioner visiting the property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9939 WP No. 102337 of 2025 6. In effect there is no delay as such from the date of knowledge but the delay which has been condoned is from the date on which the decree has been passed. I do not find any infirmity in the same, the petition stands disposed of. 7. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA's does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63