- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47884 CRP No. 275 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 275 OF 2023 (M) BETWEEN: 1. H L MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHIKKALASKHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT JATHAVARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 5621010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGARAJA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. DEVARAJA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4. SHIVANANDA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47884 CRP No. 275 of 2023 ALL ARE R/AT JATHAVARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 5621010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUTHURAJU A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2023 PASSED IN MISC.APPEAL NO.10/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2019 PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS NO.47/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR. DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 19 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Ravindra B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Muthuraju A., learned counsel for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47884 CRP No. 275 of 2023 2. Defendant in O.S.No.66/2000 filed an appeal in RA No.19/2008 challenging the judgment and decree. When the appeal was pending, since appellant died, an application to bring the legal representatives on record came to be filed. 3. When the enquiry was in progress, appeal came to be dismissed for non prosecution. Therefore a petition was filed under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore the appeal. Said the miscellaneous petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 4. Against, the defendant filed an appeal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.10/2022. Learned Appellate Judge, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of dismissal of the miscellaneous petition inter alia holding in paragraphs No.20 and 21 are as under : "20. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon the judgment reported in 2009 AIR SCW 7304 in between Satpal Singh V/s Chunni Lal (since deceased) through LRs argues that non appearance of the appellant due to death of brother and accident of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47884 CRP No. 275 of 2023 wife is sufficient cause for restoration by condoning the delay. However, in this case there is no pleadings regarding such incidents in the family of the petitioner/appellant. Under such circumstances this ruling is not applicable to this case on hand. 21. In this case the trial court has provided sufficient opportunity of two years to the petitioner/appellant to go on with the enquiry on LRs application. But inspite of the same the petitioner/appellant has not proceeded with the enquiry on LRs application. This clearly goes to show that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in this petition. Even the petitioner has not explained any reasons for delay in conducting the enquiry. The petitioner failed to prove that he was suffering from jaundice. Under such circumstances appellant/petitioner is not entitled for condonation of delay without explanation of delay for 2 years in proceeding with the case. Therefore, the order of the trial court is in accordance with law and the interference of this court to the order of the trial court is not necessary. Hence, I answer Point in the Negative." 5. Being aggrieved by the same, legal representative of the original defendant has filed the present revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47884 CRP No. 275 of 2023 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court is of the opinion that the appeal needs to be adjudicated on merits after permitting the legal representative of the original defendant who was the appellant in R.A. No.19/2008 to proceed with the case on payment of cost as no appeal can be dismissed only on the ground that the legal representative of the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal properly especially when the application was pending. 7. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Revision petitioner allowed on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent. (ii) Parties shall appear before the First Appellellate Court in R.A.No.19/2008, positively on 06.12.2025 without further notice. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47884 CRP No. 275 of 2023 (iii) Payment of cost on or before 06.12.2025 is condition precedent for restoration of the appeal and further prosecution of the appeal. (iv) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31