- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2024 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. SHASHIKALA K.M., D/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA W/O SRI NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KADIRENAHALLI BUDIKOTE HOBLI BANGARPETE TALUK KOLAR – 563 114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI KIRAN N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA 2. SMT. THIMMAKKA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O SRI NAGARAJ 3. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 4. SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA K. M., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE MUNISWAMY GOWDA 5. SMT. PREMAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA 6. SRI SURESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O SRI SHANKARAPPA 7. SMT. SULOCHANA K. M., D/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KADRIENAHALLI VILLAGE BUDIKOTE HOBLI, BANGARPETE TALUK KOLAR – 563 114. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF, ITINERARY AT BANGARPET. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. An appeal along with an application in I.A.No.1 before the appellate Court seeking to condone the delay is filed by plaintiff No.2 almost after 9 years of the judgment of the trial Court. The reasons assigned in the application before the first appellate Court is that, she entrusted her case to an advocate Sri Narayanappa, practicing in Bangarpet after the disposal of the suit. He has defrauded her by stating that an appeal is already filed and pending for hearing. In the year 2016, she got married and blessed with two baby boys. With no leisure, she was constrained to take care of her kids. In the meantime, the said advocate neglected her case and when she learnt about his misconduct, she has taken back the file and handed over the same to another advocate by name Sri Nagendra Rao. It is her averment in the affidavit that the said Sri Nagendra Rao also unreasonably delayed in filing the regular appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 Ultimately, she has taken back the records in the month of 2021. Due to frequent lockdown imposed by the government, the appeal along with the application came to be filed by the advocate on record thereafter. In this way, there was delay in preferring an appeal after 9 years for no fault of her. Hence, there is an inordinate delay of 9 years in preferring the regular appeal. Excluding limitation period extended by the High Court of Karnataka due to COVID-19, she is less educated and had entrusted her case papers to the above said advocates at every point of time. Hence, she prays this Court to condone the delay. In pursuance of that, the appeal is filed along with the delay application and the a copy of the same is served on the respondents. 3. The respondents appeared and filed objections contending that frivolous and baseless grounds are urged in the affidavit and the reasons are not supported by any supporting material. 4. The appellate Court after considering the objections of the respondents, allowed the appellant to examine herself as PW1 and got marked two documents as Exs.P1 and P2. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 appellate Court having considered the evidence available on record and the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed on 14.09.2011, observed that the appellant has not stated details as to when the papers were entrusted to the advocates and no material is placed before the appellate Court for having taken any disciplinary action sought by the appellant against those advocates. The appellate Court also observed that no material is placed in support of the same and even not examined the advocates to whom papers were entrusted to file the appeal. It is also observed that the appellant is less educated and has no knowledge about the disposal of the suit and also to approach the Court within time, but the appellate Court has taken note of the fact that the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court was taken in the year 2016, when the judgment was rendered in the year 2011 and between the years 2011 and 2016, there is no explanation for delay in filing the appeal and also comes to the conclusion that delay can be condoned if the reason for such delay is satisfactorily explained and sufficient cause is shown. Hence dismissed the same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend before this Court that the papers were entrusted to the aforesaid advocates in the year 2016 and in the same year, she got married and was engaged in taking care of her kids. But the fact is that, sale of the property happened in the year 2006 itself, suit was filed in 2006 immediately after the sale of the property and suit came to be disposed in the year 2011. 6. It is to be noted that in the affidavit, it is not specifically mentioned as, in which year the appellant approached the advocate for having entrusted the paper, no details is placed on record. The appellant has not examined the advocates to prove that she really entrusted the case papers and mere say that the papers were entrusted to the advocates and ultimately they have not filed the appeal cannot gain the confidence of this Court. These facts cannot be a ground for explaining the delay without any supporting material. The appellant has not taken any action against the advocates who had received the brief and not filed the appeal and no disciplinary action is taken by submitting a complaint against the advocates to whom papers were entrusted and not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 filed the appeal. Nothing is placed on record and only a self- serving statement stating that cases were entrusted to the advocates to file an appeal and kept quiet for a period of 9 years to pursue the matter. When the appellant came to know that the advocates to whom the papers were entrusted to file an appeal have defrauded her, no action is taken by the appellant against them and the reasons assigned in the affidavit for the delay of 9 years in filing the appeal is not satisfactory. Each day’s delay has to be explained and she has to show the sufficient cause for such delay. Particularly, she says that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2016 and the suit was disposed of in the year 2011 itself. 7. What prevented the appellant to file an appeal immediately, nothing is stated except bald statement that the papers were entrusted to the advocates. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law with regard to the delay is concerned and the fact that the appellate Court has afforded an opportunity to the appellant to explain the same in the evidence also, the same is not satisfactorily explained and therefore, the delay of 9 years - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43135 RSA No. 169 of 2024 cannot be condoned. Hence, the order passed by the appellate Court cannot be interfered insofar as the delay is concerned and hence, second appeal is dismissed. I.A.No.2/2024 is disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:SS