- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43318 RSA No. 318 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.318 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT KAUVUDAVADI VILLAGE SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 115. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAKUMAR S/O R. SIDDAIAH AGE: MAJOR 2. RANGAIAH S/O RACHAIAH AGE: MAJOR BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KAVUDAVADI VILLAGE SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 115. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43318 RSA No. 318 of 2025 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGARA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.52/2010 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, YELANDURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard on I.A.No.1/2025 and there is a delay of 1,002 days in filing the second appeal. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to and in paragraph No.4, it is stated with regard to pandemic and he was advised not to go out of the house and was also suffering from old age ailments. Further, it is also stated that since property rights are involved, the delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned and there is no intentional delay in filing the appeal. 2. Having perused the affidavit, particularly paragraph No.4, reasons are set out with regard to Covid is concerned and Covid effect was in the month of March, 2020, but the judgment was passed in December, 2021 and by that time, all Covid Guidelines were over and the said ground urged before - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43318 RSA No. 318 of 2025 the Court for the delay in filing the appeal will not come to the aid of the appellant. The other reason assigned is that the appellant was having old age ailments and his age is mentioned as 72 years in the affidavit and in support of age related ailments, no medical documents are placed before the Court. Further, it is not stated in the affidavit that the appellant was not having any knowledge about the dismissal of appeal, but admitted in paragraph No.3 that judgment was passed on 20.12.2021 and when the appellant is having the knowledge about the judgment passed, there was an inordinate delay. When the judgment was passed in 2021, the present second appeal is filed on 25.02.2025. 3. Having considered the delay and also recent judgment of the Apex Court in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs., vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others,1 the Apex Court held that the Courts must be mindful that strong case on merits is no ground for condonation of delay. When an application for condonation of delay is placed before the Court, the inquiry is confined to whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated for 1 reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43318 RSA No. 318 of 2025 not filing the appeal or proceeding within the prescribed period of limitation. The merits of the underlying case are wholly extraneous to this inquiry. The purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not to determine whether the claim is legally or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a reasonable justification for the delay. 4. In the absence of any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, even considering the matter on merits also does not arise and detailed discussion was made in the judgment of the Apex Court regarding condonation of delay in similar set of facts and circumstance. Hence, I do not find any ground to condone the delay. However, learned counsel for the appellant at this juncture would submit that the appellant may be given liberty to file a comprehensive suit. 5. Having taken note of discussion made in paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the judgment of the Trial Court that remaining land was sold in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as discussion was made that earlier also sold the property in favour of one Smt. Shivamma to the extent of 36 guntas and when such observation is made, this Court does not find any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43318 RSA No. 318 of 2025 ground even for granting such liberty and the same will be futile effort. 6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the regular second appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24