- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1527 OF 2023 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. PANDURANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE S. PANDURANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O LATE S. PANDURANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. SMT. RANGAMMA D/O LATE S. PANDURANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O LATE S. PANDURANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 5. SRI. P. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE S.PANDURANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 TO 5 ARE R/O GOWDETI VILLAGE Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 202. 6. SRI. S. NAGARAJA S/O SRI. KANTIPURA SANNA MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O KANTIPURA VILLAGE MADAKASIRA MANDALAM, MADAKASIRA TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 301. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. C. RAMESH S/O SRI. C. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O UTKAR VILLAGE, PARIGI MANDALAM HINDUPUR TALUK, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 331. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANDEEP K THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. MOHAN K.N, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.32/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The appellants/defendants preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavgada (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in O.S.No.32/2014 whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff and directed the appellants/defendants to execute the registration of Sale Deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff by receiving consideration amount. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against the defendants/appellants for the relief of specific performance of contract and for a direction to the defendants to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 respect of suit schedule properties as per the Agreement of Sale dated 11.10.2012 which was jointly executed by the defendants for a consideration of Rs.23,60,800/-. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and directed the defendants to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties, failing which, the plaintiff was at liberty to get registration of the Sale Deed through the Court Commissioner on behalf of the defendants by depositing remaining consideration as per law. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants preferred this appeal. However, there is delay of 1012 days in filing this appeal. Hence, to condone the same, appellants filed I.A.1/2023. 5. Since there is an inordinate delay in filing this appeal, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A.1/2023. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 6. The application is accompanied with the affidavit of the appellants. It is stated that the reason for non-filing of appeal in time was neither intentional, nor deliberate and was only for bonafide reasons. It is further contended that the appellants were not aware of passing of the impugned judgment and they came to know about the same only when they received the summons from the Executing court. Hence, they immediately filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of CPC and the said application came to be rejected by the Executing Court on 26.05.2023. Further it is stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, the appellants failed to approach the court in time. 7. It is also stated that the appellants have a good case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, they will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss. Thus, the appellants pray to allow the application by condoning the delay. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposed the application by filing the statement of objections and contended that the Trial Court has decreed the suit on 02-08-2018 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., appellant Nos.5 and 6 were representing before the Trial Court and contested the matter. As such, passing of the impugned judgment was well within the knowledge of the appellants/defendants. 9. It is further contended that the plaintiff had filed Ex.No.38/2019 for execution of decree passed in O.S.No.32/2014 before the Executing Court. The Court Commissioner was also appointed by the Executing Court, and the Sale Deed has been executed by the Court Commissioner on 29-09-2023 in favour of the plaintiff, vide Document No.PVG-1-03345-2023-24 in Book 1 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada in respect of the suit schedule properties. Hence, in view of execution of Sale Deed, the appeal has become infructuous. As such, there - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 is no reason to condone the inordinate delay. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the application. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit filed in support of the applications as well as the statement of objections filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 11. It could be gathered from records that the appellants have kept quiet for a period 1012 days i.e., for nearly 3 years and filed the instant appeal on 24-07-2023 along with the application for condonation of delay. In the affidavit, except stating that they were not aware about the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, they failed to approach the court, there is no other proper explanation offered by the appellants/defendants to condone the inordinate delay. However, as could be gathered from records, it is seen that defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., appellant Nos.5 and 6 were representing before the Trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 Court and contested the matter. Further, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent the Sale Deed in respect of suit schedule properties has already been executed by the Executing Court through the Court Commissioner. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. T.T. MURALI BABU - (2014) 4 SCC 108, at paragraph 17 has held as under; “17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold. ” 13. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and in view of unsatisfactory reasons assigned by the appellants, the Court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons. Thus, equity could not be balanced in favour of the applicants/appellants to condone the inordinate delay. Accordingly, the reasons assigned for condonation of delay is not acceptable and the application therefore fails. Hence, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34136-DB RFA No. 1527 of 2023 ORDER I.A.No.1/2023 filed seeking condonation of delay, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. All pending I.As. stand dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74