- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43317 RSA No. 495 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.495 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNA S. DEVADIGA W/O SOORYA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O GANDHINAGAR, HEBRI POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 112. 2. SMT. SUMITHRA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BALAGARU, KUDUMALLIGE (P) THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432. 3. SMT. LEELAVATHI WO RAJU DEVADIGA AGED ALWAT 63 YEARS RAT KUMBARADADIGE KURUVALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432. 4. SMT. RUKMANI W/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BALEGARU, KUDUMALLIGE POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43317 RSA No. 495 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. D.V.MANJAPPA S/O VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O DASANAGADDE MELINA KURUVALLI VILLAGE KURUVALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.46/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants on I.A.No.1/2025 and there is a delay of 469 days in filing the appeal. 2. In support of the application, an affidavit is filed before this Court and in the affidavit, in paragraph No.4, it is stated that second appeal is filed in the month of March, 2025 and there was delay of 15 months. It is also stated that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43317 RSA No. 495 of 2025 delay has occurred due to genuine and sufficient cause. It is also stated in Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit that judgments of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were primarily based on the survey sketches marked as Ex.D1 and in paragraph No.7, it is stated that the appellants doubted the authenticity of the document, but when they were under shock, some of the villagers advised to get the certified copy of the sketch. When it was applied, got the endorsement indicating that there is no sketch in the file. In the circumstances, it is created by the defendant. Immediately, upon this discovery, they consulted the advocate and the advocate advised to file a comprehensive evidence to substantiate their claim regarding the fabricated nature of the survey sketch and after obtaining the endorsement, consulted the advocate and filed the appeal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is not the case of the appellants that they were not having knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal and appeal was dismissed in September, 2023. But, the appellants contend that they gave an application and endorsement was issued. But, endorsement is also dated 22.01.2025 and nothing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43317 RSA No. 495 of 2025 is placed on record that immediately after the disposal of the appeal, he filed the application for the sketch. But, in the very endorsement dated 22.02.2025, there is a reference for giving the letter 19.12.2024 and in between September 2023 to 19.12.2024, no such effort was made and only in the month of December, 2024, the application was given and endorsement was given within a span of 1 month. When such being the case, with regard to the delay of 15 months is concerned, nothing is explained. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to condone the delay. Having considered the grounds urged in I.A.No.1/2025, no ground is made out to condone the delay. However, at this juncture, the counsel would submit that appellants may be given liberty to file a comprehensive suit. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Consequently. The regular second appeal is dismissed with liberty to file a comprehensive suit. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27