- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100622 OF 2024 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SRI. HALLIKERI CHANDRAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA, AGE. 52 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHRISTAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR - 583137. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DYAMAWWA MALILARD W/O. TIRAKAPPA MAILARD AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HARANAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST.HAVERI. 2. SMT. HOLEYAWWA W/O. SHEKAPPA TALAWAR, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HARANAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 3. SMT. HANUMAWWA W/O. KALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HARANAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.15 12:39:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 DIST. HAVERI. 4. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HALLIKERI, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARANAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 5. SRI. ASHOK S/O. BASAPPA HALLIKERI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARANAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 6. SRI. DEVENDRAPPA HALLIKERI S/O. BASAPPA HALLIKERI, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HARANAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ------ THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC., RANEBENNUR IN O.S.NO.422/2013 DISPOSEd OF ON 01.08.2018 AND CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANEBENNUR DATED 08.06.2020 IN R.A.NO. 92/2018 AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.92/2018 BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANEBENNUR DATED 08.06.2020, JMFC., RANEBENNUR AND TO RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC., RANEBENNUR DATED 01.08.2018 IN O.S.NO.422/2013 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS BY ALLOWING THIS R.S.A., TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant No.4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2020 passed in RA No.92 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranebennur, setting aside judgment and decree dated 01.08.2018 passed in OS No.422 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 3. As there is delay of 805 days in filing the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed IA No.1 of 2024, seeking condonation of delay. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents by filing statement of objections. 4. I have heard Sri S.N. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Miss. Vinaya Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6. 5. Sri. S.N. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of the court to paragraph 6 of the affidavit in IA No.1 of 2024 and contended that, the appeal was heard by the First Appellate Court erroneously, wherein, the notice has not been issued by the Civil Court in the while considering the material on record. He further submitted that, since the notice has not been issued - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 to the appellant herein in RA No.92 of 2018, the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with in this appeal. 6. Per contra, Miss. Vinaya Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6, has filed a memo long with the order dated 23.07.2024 in Civil.Misc.No.4 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JFMC, Ranebennur and submitted that, the notice in RA No.92 of 2018 was served on the petitioner in the said Miscellaneous Petition, who is the appellant in this appeal and accordingly, she submitted that as there is inordinate delay in approaching this court and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 appellant at paragraphs 4 to 6 in the affidavit accompanying application in IA No.1 of 2024. Perusal of the reasons, as well as the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would indicate that, notice in RA No.92 of 2018 was not served to the appellant herein. The said aspect of the matter was considered by the Trial Court in Civil.Misc.No.4 of 2021, particularly, referring to paragraph 19 of the said order, that the notice issued by the First Appellate Court was delivered to the appellant herein on 01.02.2019 and therefore, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, the affidavit filed by the appellant herein seeking condonation of delay is far from truth. It I well established principle in law that, while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is not the length of delay but the cause of delay has to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 be looked into. If the aggrieved party has approached the court with clean hands, with bonafide reasons, same has to be accepted. I have carefully perused the reasons assigned by the appellant in the affidavit accompanying IA No.1 of 2024, wherein, it is stated that notice was not served on the appellant herein in RA No.92 of 2018 and the said affidavit is incorrect as the notice is served on appellant in RA No.1 of 2024 on 01.02.2019 and appellant has not approached this court with clean hands and therefore, the discretionary relief of accepting the application in IA No. 1 of 2024 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, cannot be extended to appellant herein, who had filed affidavit with incorrect facts. Therefore, as there is no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the inordinate delay of 805 days in filing the appeal and in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra vs. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2935 RSA No. 100622 of 2024 Union of India and another reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625, the reasons assigned by the appellant is incorrect and same cannot be accepted. In the result IA No.1 of 2024 is dismissed and consequently Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12