- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 28991 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M.R. USHARANI W/O. K.K. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT RANGANATHANAGARA, SRIRANGAPATTANA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETHAN GOWDA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.P. VINAY S/O. K.L.PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT KIRAGANDURU VILLAGE, DUDDAHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK. 2. P.ARPITHA, D/O. K.L.PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KIRAGANDURU VILLAGE, DUDDAHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK. 3. K.L.PAPANNA, S/O. LATE K.LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 4. K.L.RAJANNA, S/O. LATE K.LINGALAH, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 5. SANJAY, S/O. K.L. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 6. SALINI, D/O. K.L.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE R/AT DOOR NO.29, 1ST CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, ARAKERE, BANGALORE - 560 076. 7. K.L. MANOHARA, S/O. K.L. LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESP. 8. K.L.MADHUSUDHANA, S/O. K.L. LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8 ARE R/AT KIRAGANDURU VILLAGE, DUDDAHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571 401. 9. K.L.MEENAKSHI, W/O. SREENIVAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 6TH CROSS, KALLAHALLI, V.V.NAGARA, MANDYA CITY - 571 401. 10. L.KEMPAIAH, S/O. LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT MAYANNAKOPPALU VILLAGE, YALIYUR POST, KOTHATHIHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571 401. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 11. Y.V.SUNIL, S/O. Y.T. VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT YAHASSUNILAYA, 18TH CROSS, KALLAHALLI, V.V.NAGARA, MANDYA CITY 571 401. 12. R.N.PRASHANTH, S/O. M.S.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.423, 10TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARINAGAR, MANDYA CITY 571 401. 13. A. PUSHPALATHA, S/O. S.CHANNEGOWDA, AGED AGOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT INDAVALU VILLAGE, KOTHATHIHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571 401. 14. Y.K.PRABHAVATHI, S/O. V.B.SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT VYDHAYANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABAHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571 401. 15. PADMA W/O. S.P.SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SHEELANERE VILLAGE, SHEELANEREHOBLI, K.R.PETTALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401. 16. INDRAMMA, W/O. RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT K.V. 295, 3RD CROSS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 KUVEMPUNAGARA, MANDYATALUK 571 401. 17. K. PUTTASWAMY, S/O. LATE GADDAYAJOGIKALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 438. 18. M.C. THAMMANNA, S/O. CHIKKAHYDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MAYANNANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, KOTHATHIHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571 401. 19. H.C.SUDHAGOPAL, W/O. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT HULUGONDAHALLI VILLAGE, HOROHALLIHOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 117. 20. DODDAHANUMEGOWDA, S/O. LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, KHB COLONY, NEAR RTO OFFICE, MANDYA CITY 571 401. 21. R.G.SARITHA, S/O. GOWDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, KHB COLONY, NEAR RTO OFFICE, MANDYA CITY 571 401. 22. S.B.RANGESH, S/O. S.K.PUTTARANGEGOWDA, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT SRIRANGAPURA VILLAGE, BELLURHOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401. 23. Y.V.YASHAWANTH, S/O. Y.T. VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 24. PADMA, W/O. Y.T. VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.23 AND 24 ARE R/AT YASHASSUNILAYA, 18TH CROSS, V.V.NAGARA, MANDYA CITY 571 401. 25. LEELAVATHI, W/O. B.K.ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, A/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILEHOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401. 26. H.C.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O. H.K.CHALUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT K.HONNALAGERE VILLAGE, KASABAHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571 401. 27. SHIVARAJAMMA W/O. G.K.RAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 28. G.K.RAJA, S/O. KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.27 AND 28 ARE - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 R/AT GOOLURU VILLAGE, KOPPALAHOBLI, MADDURTALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 428. 29. C.PADMA, W/O. M.S.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.423, SRI. SIDDALINGESHWARANANILAYA, 10TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI- NAGARA, MANDYA CITY 571 401. 30. K.N.NANDANA KUMAR, S/O. K.L.NAGALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KALENAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHATHIHOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571 401. 31. P.K.MANU, D/O. KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.9, BLOCK NO.29, SOMANATHAPURA, MYSORE CITY 570 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18-8-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN R.A. NO. 64/2019 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT MANDYA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE R.A 64/2019 AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Chethan Gowda L., learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition is filed by defendant No.11 in O.S.No.99/2013, challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in R.A.No.64/2019 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’), on an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, whereby the delay of 495 days in preferring the appeal was condoned. 2.1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had instituted O.S.No.99/2013 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), seeking partition and separate possession against defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7. In the said suit, the Trial Court framed a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit. The preliminary issue was answered in the affirmative and the suit came to be dismissed as not maintainable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2017, respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.64/2019, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 495 days. The Appellate Court, upon considering the explanation offered for the delay, allowed the application and condoned the delay of 495 days. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order of condonation, is before this Court in the present writ petition. 3. Sri Chethan Gowda L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the inordinate delay of 495 days has not been properly explained by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The explanation offered is neither satisfactory nor acceptable. It is contended that the Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the reasons assigned for the delay, has erroneously condoned the same. 4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ papers. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted the suit seeking partition and separate possession. The Trial Court framed the following preliminary issue as Issue No.5: "5) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable for want of subsisting right and interest over the suit schedule property as contended by the defendants No.8 to 30 in their respective written statement?" 6. The Trial Court, having answered the preliminary issue in the affirmative, dismissed the suit as not maintainable for want of any subsisting right or interest of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, by its order dated 12.10.2017. It is stated in the application seeking condonation of delay that the counsel representing the plaintiffs before the Trial Court had not apprised them of the status of the case. It is further stated that though the order was passed on 12.10.2017, the same came to their knowledge only on 27.11.2018, upon enquiry regarding the status of the case. 6.1 It is further stated that the counsel who appeared in the suit did not cooperate in securing the relevant papers required to proceed further in the matter. It is also stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2, with the assistance of another - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 counsel, subsequently obtained the certified copies and thereafter presented the appeal challenging the order dated 12.10.2017. 6.2 The Appellate Court, on considering the explanation offered, recorded that the suit had been disposed of on a preliminary issue even before the commencement of trial, and hence there was little occasion for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be aware of the progress of the case. The Appellate Court further observed that unless the trial had commenced, the plaintiffs may not have been in a position to know the status of the suit. It accordingly held that the explanation offered was bona fide, and in the larger interest of justice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to be afforded an opportunity to contest the order of dismissal of the suit. 7. This Court has also perused the reasons assigned in the application as well as the findings recorded by the Appellate Court. On such perusal, it is evident that sufficient and acceptable grounds have been made out for condonation of delay. There is no material to indicate any wilful or deliberate delay in preferring the appeal. The explanation offered appears - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43835 WP No. 28991 of 2025 to be genuine, and the rights of the parties cannot be curtailed on technical grounds, particularly when the delay is attributable to lack of communication by the counsel and the bona fides of the applicants stand demonstrated. 8. In the light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Court. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17