- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 33275 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: N. CHELUVEGOWDA S/O. SEETHARAMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS W/O. LATE CHALUVEGOWDA. 2. SMT.SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O. LATE CHALUVEGOWDA. 3. SMT. SHARDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O. LATE CHALUVEGOWDA. 4. SRI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. LATE CHALUVEGOWDA. S. RAMEGOWDA S/O. LATE SEETHARAMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 5. SRI JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O. LATE S. RAMEGOWDA R/AT NO.19, KUMBARA BEEDI KUMBARA KOPPAL MYSURU - 570 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.S.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN R.A.NO.187/2022 AND R.A.NO.188/2022 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSORE, COPIES SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 09.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in R.A.Nos.187/2022 and 188/2022 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners filed original suits in O.S.Nos.366/2022 and 367/2022 for declaration and permanent injunction, which came to be decreed in their favour on 08.02.2021. Aggrieved by which, the respondents preferred R.A.Nos.187/2022 and 188/2022 before II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. 4. In the said regular appeals, the respondents have filed an application in I.A.No.1 seeking to condone delay of 360 days in filing the appeals, which is incorrect. However, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that there is actually a delay of more than 547 days and no proper reasons have been assigned to condone the delay. The petitioners have filed statement of objections to the said application. The said application was kept pending without disposing of. The first Appellate Court passed an order on 03.04.2025 by stating that it would be just and proper to post the case for enquiry on I.A.No.1 without - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 considering the objections filed by the petitioners to the said application. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the first Appellate Court, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P.No.20303/2025 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the first Appellate Court to dispose off R.A.Nos.187/2022 and 188/2022 within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioners that as per the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners have filed the advance application by advancing the appeal from 08.10.2025 to 09.09.2025 to hear the matter on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay. Without considering the submissions of the petitioners herein, an order came to be passed by the first Appellate Court on 09.09.2025, which is the subject matter of this petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 7. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the respondent-State is unnecessarily prolonging and protracting the proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the first Appellate Court is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and is required to be set aside. 8. It is further contended that the first Appellate Court has assumed that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the application for condonation of delay, whereas no such thing has been mentioned in the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ petition while disposing of the same. 9. It is further contended that the first Appellate Court has held that in view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it deemed to have condoned the delay in filing the regular appeals. On the basis of such statement, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 came to be allowed and the delay has been condoned without hearing and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 passing any reasoned order on the said application. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order. 10. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State does not dispute the contents of the order passed by the first Appellate Court. However, he sustains the impugned order and contends that the first Appellate Court has heard and disposed of the said application in accordance with law. 11. A short point that would arises for consideration is that: "Whether the first Appellate Court has decided the application in I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay on merits and passed any reasoned order?" 12. On perusal of the impugned order, it is nowhere seen any consideration of the application, the reasons for delay and condonation of the same and the objections so raised by the petitioners. There are no reasons forthcoming in the impugned order for having condoned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 the delay. On the contrary, without any basis the first Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the said application. No doubt, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order in W.P.No.20303/2025 directing the first Appellate Court to dispose off the appeals within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But it has nowhere stated that I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay is to be condoned or allowed. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse, illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in R.A.Nos.187/2022 and 188/2022 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, is hereby set aside; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47835 WP No. 33275 of 2025 iii. The matter is remitted back to the first Appellate Court to consider I.A.No.1 on merits and decide the matter by passing a reasoned order and also abide by the conditions imposed in the writ petition in W.P.No.20303/2025 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to dispose of the matter within six months; iv. It is needless to mention that the respondent- State shall abide by the orders passed in the aforementioned writ petition and to co- operate and make effective representation. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3