- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100577 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI KIRAN S/O LATE BHIMSA MIRAJAKAR AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.2427, NEAR MAHADEV TEMPLE, RAVIWAR PETH, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SOUMYA S. GUJAMAGADI AND SMT. NIRMALA V. DODAMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560021. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/CHIT FUND REGISTRAR, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/CHIT, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001. 4. M/S MARGADARSHI CHITS (KARNATAKA) PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, B.R. BALAGOPAL S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 1ST FLOOR, MUJAWAR ARCAD, OLD P.B. ROAD(JNMC ROAD), NEHRU NAGAR, DIST. BELAGAVI 590010. 5. SHRI. DATTATRAY S/O BASAVANNI JADHAV AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MARATA GALLI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 6. SHRI MAHAVEER M. OSWAL AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. REAL ESTATE & GOLD SMITH, R/O. NO.2495/B, RAVIWARPETH, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 7. SHRI RAMACHANDRA Y. HANDIGUND AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O NO.190/5, PLOT NO.18, BASAVANAGAR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307. 8. SHRI VISHWANATH S/O GANAPATHI MANE AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O. NO.2475A, RAVIWARPETH, TQ. GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI-591307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5-R8 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.100958/2024 (GM-CFA), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present intra-Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 calling in question the order dated 20.08.2024 in W.P.No.100958/2024. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that claiming various amounts due and payable by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and the appellant, the fourth respondent herein raised a dispute under the Chit Funds Act, 19821, consequent to which, an ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022 was passed holding the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and the appellant herein jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,56,257/- together with interest with 24% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,008/- from 10.09.2019. 3. Being aggrieved by the ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022, the appellant herein preferred an appeal 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1982 Act’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 before the third respondent – Joint Registrar under Section 70 of the 1982 Act. Since the said appeal was belatedly filed, the appellant also filed an application under Section 70(2) of 1982 Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 19632 seeking for condonation of delay of 1 year 8 months and 24 days in filing the appeal. The third respondent-Joint Registrar by order dated 22.01.2024 dismissed the said application as well as the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.100958/2024, which has been dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2024. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 4. Heard submission of the learned counsel Smt.Soujanya S. Gujamagadi for Smt.Nirmala V. Dodamani, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel Sri.S.N.Banakar for respondent No.4. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1963 Act’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the appellant against whom proceedings were initiated by the fourth respondent under the provisions of 1982 Act did not have an opportunity to contest the proceedings and that the award dated 09.02.2022 was an ex-parte award. It is further contended that challenging the ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022, the appellant has preferred appeal before the third respondent – Joint Registrar and since the appeal was belatedly filed, an application seeking condonation of delay of 1 year 8 months and 24 days was filed. It is further contended that along with the affidavit accompanying the application, relevant facts regarding the appellant not being aware of the proceedings initiated against him was mentioned and it is further contended that only when execution petition No.13/2022 was filed to execute ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022, appellant learnt regarding the recovery proceedings, consequent to which, he approached his counsel and necessary steps was taken to file the appeal. It is further contended that the third respondent – Joint - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 Registrar without noticing the relevant factual matrix of the matter and adequately appreciating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, erred in dismissing the same. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge also has not adequately appreciated the fact that the appellant did not have an opportunity to contest the proceedings initiated against him by the fourth respondent on its merits. Hence, learned counsel seeks for allowing of the above appeal and granting the reliefs. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.S.N.Banakar for the fourth respondent vehemently opposing the above writ appeal contends that relevant factual aspect of the matter has been adequately appreciated by the learned Single judge and that the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition ought not to be interfered by this Court in the present appeal. It is further contended that the appellant has not adequately explained the delay in filing the appeal before the third respondent-Joint - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 Registrar and that the Joint Registrar was justified in passing the order dated 22.01.2024 dismissing the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the above appeal. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate places the relevant facts on record. 8. Submissions of the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with? (2) Whether the relief sought for by the appellant in the writ petition is liable to be granted? Regarding point Nos.(1) and (2): 9. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as the fourth respondent has initiated - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 proceedings under 1982 Act, consequent to which, an ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022 has been passed ordering for recovery of moneys as noticed above. It is a matter on record that the appellant has preferred appeal No.JRL/B/DAP019/2023-24 before the third respondent – Joint Registrar and an application under Section 70(2) of 1982 Act read with Section 5 of 1963 Act has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1 year 8 months and 24 days in filing the appeal. It is forthcoming that the third respondent-Joint Registrar by order dated 22.01.2024 refused to register/accept the appeal as there is no reason to condone the delay. It is forthcoming from the said order dated 22.01.2024 that even the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay has not been noticed. The averments/reasons put forth by the appellant in this affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay have not been considered by the third respondent before recording a finding that there are no grounds to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge while considering the relevant - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 fact situation noticed that the appellant has entered appearance in the execution proceedings and hence, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 10. It is relevant to note here that the appellant did not have an opportunity to contest the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent for recovery of money which has resulted in passing of the ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022. The said ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022 has been challenged by the appellant in appeal No.JRL/B/DAP019/2023-24 before the third respondent – Joint Registrar. 11. The appeal remedy provided under Section 70(2) of 1982 Act is a valuable one which ought not to be ordinarily denied. The application for condonation of delay of 1 year 8 months 24 days is filed along with the appeal, averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application ought to have been appropriately considered by the third respondent – Joint Registrar which has not been done. The appellant has placed the relevant facts on - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 record wherein it is specifically stated that upon coming to know of the execution proceedings, he learnt of the ex- parte award dated 09.02.2022, consequent to which, appeal has been filed. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed by the third respondent-Joint Registrar and an opportunity ought to have been accorded to the appellant to contest the ex-parte award dated 09.02.2022 on its merits. 13. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and during pendency of this writ appeal, the appellant has deposited a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18813, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.44,000/-. 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1881 Act’ - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 14. In view of the discussions made above, it is just and proper that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to contest the appeal before the third respondent-Joint Registrar on its merits, subject to certain terms and the amount deposited by the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court shall be payable to the fourth respondent and the said amount shall be subject to further orders that shall be passed by the third respondent-Joint Registrar. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER a) Writ appeal is allowed, subject to the appellant paying cost of Rs.25,000/- to the fourth respondent, which cost shall be paid on the date of appearance of the parties before the third respondent-Joint Registrar. b) The order dated 20.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.100958/2024 by the learned Single Judge is set aside. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 c) The order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the No.JRL/B/DAP019/2023-24 by the Joint Registrar is set aside. d) The application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal No.JRL/B/DAP019/2023-24 before the third respondent-Joint Registrar is allowed and delay in filing the said appeal is condoned. e) The parties shall appear before the third respondent-Joint Registrar on 10.06.2025 without the requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard, consequent to which, the third respondent shall conduct further proceedings in the appeal in accordance with law. f) In the event appellant fails to deposit the cost as ordered above, the appellant shall loose the benefits of this order. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6879-DB WA No. 100577 of 2024 g) The amounts deposited by the appellant during the pendency of the writ petition and in the present appeal shall be payable to the fourth respondent, which shall be subject to the final orders that shall be passed by the third respondent – Joint Registrar in appeal bearing No.JRL/B/DAP019/2023-24. h) All contentions of parties kept open. i) In view of disposal of the present appeal, pending applications, if any shall stand disposed. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE NC LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24