- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 281 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O CHIKKAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-572127. 2. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-572 127. 3. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-572 127. 4. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-572 127. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR .C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. YERRAPPA S/O LATE RAYANNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-572 127. 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMAN W/O LATE ESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-572 127. 3. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE RAYANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-572 127. 4. SRI. AVALAKONDAPPA S/O LATE KURALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE - 572 127. 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT KODIGENAHALLI KAMLARI POST, MADAKSIRA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH PIN CODE - 515 301. 6. SRI. GANGADHAR S/O LATE KURLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE - 572 127. 7. SRI. DIVAKAR S/O LATE KURLAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHYALAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE - 572 127. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR .G.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 18.06.2024, NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2022. PASSED ON IA NO. 1 IN OS NO. 376/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, REJECTING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Narendra Babu for Sri.Chandrasekhar C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.S.Balagangadhar on IA.No.2/2024. Application on IA.No.2/2024 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 544 days in filing the revision petition. 2. In the affidavit in support of the application in paragraph No.3, it has been stated as under: "3. I submit that there is a delay of 544 days in preferring the Civil Revision Petition. The impugned order is dated 07.07.2022. I am a chronic diabetic patient. Due to my age factor, my sugar reading will be high on all occasions when my sugar level goes up. I have to suffer and due to physical weakness, I will be compelled to have rest. Due to my such ailments and also because of worst effect of Covid-19, so also that I suffered serious ill. In view of that I was compelled to have rest and I am totally unmoved and till the end of December, 2023 and other petitioners - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 are my elder brother they also suffering from old age ailments and for that reason there was communication gap between us and trail court counsel, only on 2nd week of January 2024, I approached my counsel and enquiry about my application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC then only I got to know that the same was dismissed on 04.07.2022, immediately I requested him to prepare petition and to file before this Hon'ble Court. The Petition was filed on 01.04.2024 on having calculation of the days from the date of the impugned order and to the date of filing of the appeal after deduction of 90 days provided to file the appeal, ultimately the total days of delay could be 544 days. The said delay is caused due to above said bonafide reasons and not deliberate or intentional on my part. If the delay is not condoned, I will be put to greater hardship and injustice for the reason that I have made out a very good ground in support and also formulated substantial questions of law requires to be considered by this Hon'ble Court. I have every success in the appeal. If the delay is not condoned, it will cause heavily on me. On the other hand, if the delay is condoned, no harm or injustice would be caused to the other side". 3. Condition of delay is opposed by the counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seriously. 4. Having heard the arguments of both sides and noted the contents of the affidavit, this Court is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 satisfied that the reasons assigned would be within the legal framework of the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. No doubt, Courts are not required to have pedantic approach while considering the application seeking for condonation of delay. But in every case, Court cannot also take a liberal view when there is no cause at all being shown or cause pleaded or cause shown is illusory in nature. 6. In the case on hand, the applicant contends that he is aged 59 years and he is diabetic patient and therefore, he was suffering from physical weakness and compelled to take rest. Because of he was diabetic, he was worst affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and he was suffering from ill-health. Therefore, he sought for condonation of delay of 544 days. 7. It is pertinent to note that the impugned order is passed on 07.07.2022 i.e., much after the COVID-19 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic had almost disappeared and the life has come back to normalcy. 8. What was the serious ill-health that was faced by the applicant is not forthcoming in the affidavit. Likewise, what was the treatment that was taken by the revision petitioner is not forthcoming nor his contentions are supported by any medical records. A bald affidavit stating that he was suffering from ill-health would not be sufficient enough to condone the huge delay of 544 days in filing the revision petition. 9. Moreover, the impugned order of is passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, whereby he wanted the trial Court to reject the claim on the ground that there was a previous sale deed in the year 1942. 10. Paragraph No.11 of the impugned order learned trial Judge has taken note of the same and has recorded a finding that suit properties are ancestral and joint family - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47608 CRP No. 281 of 2024 properties and plaintiff is having legitimate share in the suit property which requires full fledged trial. 11. By not condoning the delay would not therefore create any serious hardship to the defendant as he can very well urge the question of the alienation in the year 1942 would protect the rights of the defendant and therefore, suit is to be rejected. 12. Ultimately if the defendant is able to establish before the Court that suit is vexatious, defendant is at liberty to plead for imposition of costs including the exemplary costs as is contemplated under Section 35A of CPC. 13. With that observation, IA.No.2/2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. Consequently, revision petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26