- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47998 RSA No. 772 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.772 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B.S. RUKMINI D/O LATE SIDDAPPA, W/O K.G. YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT FARM HOUSE, ANCHE BOOVANAHALLY, ANCHE CHITTANAHALLI POST, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571448. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASA PATAVARDHAN K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. B.S. UMADEVI D/O LATE SIDDAPPA W/O B.S. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O NO.174, III CROSS IMD STAGE, BRINDAVAN EXTENTION MYSURU-570002. 2. SMT. B.S. PUSPA, D/O LATE SIDDAPPA W/O A.G. NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, ALBUR, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201 ALBUR, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47998 RSA No. 772 of 2025 3. SRI. B.S. SHIVRAJ S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O BIDARE VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. 4. SRI. B.S. SHASHI SHEKARA, S/O B.S. SHIVRAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O BIDARE VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. 5. SMT. B.S.PREMA, W/O B.S. SHIVRAJ, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O BIDARE VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. G.V.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN R.A.NO.1/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING/ REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 AND APPEAL IS NOT ADMITTED.AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.285/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHNNARAYAPATNA AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47998 RSA No. 772 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal considering I.A.No.1 that there was a delay of 4 years in preferring the appeal. The First Appellate Court also while considering the evidence in support of limitation is concerned in detail discussed in paragraphs 11 to 13 and extracted the admission on the part of PW1 with regard to the health is concerned and also taken note that the PW1 has not admitted to any hospital and only says that he is having a heart problem and the same is not diagnosed. The First Appellate Court relies upon the documents of Ex.P1 to P9 and comes to the conclusion that the said documents are doubted since one Dr. Santhosh has issued - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47998 RSA No. 772 of 2025 the same and the fact that mother of Dr. Santhosh and his aunt are parties to the appeal also as well as in the original suit. The First Appellate Court also taken note that the suit was dismissed on 02.01.2018 and also taken note with regard to COVID-19 reasons assigned by the appellant and the same is also discussed in paragraph 13 that COVID-19 was started in China on 31.12.2008 and spread to India on 27.01.2020 and suit was dismissed on 02.01.2018. What prevented the appellant to prefer an appeal in between 02.01.2018 till March 2020, no reasons are assigned. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that the appellant was very negligent and delay is also not explained properly. Each day delay ought to have been explained with sufficient material but same has not been done. 4. The Apex Court also in the recent judgment reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969 in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs., vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others in paragraphs 140, 141, 142 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47998 RSA No. 772 of 2025 categorically held that a lethargic litigant cannot be encouraged while condoning the delay unless the delay is explained properly and each day delay ought to have been explained and without considering the sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the matter cannot be considered on merits. 5. In the case on hand, there was a delay of 4 years in filing the appeal. It is not the case that they were not having the knowledge, but only their contention that they came to know about the same in the year 2022. But not pursued the matter from 2018 till 2022. The records also discloses that certified copy was also taken through another advocate, not the advocate who conducted the case. All these factors were taken note of by the First Appellate Court while rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. In view of inordinate delay of 4 years which has not been explained with sufficient cause, the First Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47998 RSA No. 772 of 2025 the First Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal since the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence, no ground is made out to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN