- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. Y.C. NARAYANAPPA S/O CHIKKAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O YALAKALARALAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561209. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA D/O CHIKALAKSHMAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O YALAKALARALAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561209. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIBANDE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2001 PASSED IN O.S. NO.14/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and judgment of the Trial Court was passed on 13.02.2001 in O.S.No.14/1998 and an appeal is filed in the year 2022 and though there was a delay of 21 years, but in the application nowhere stated that what was the delay and specific reason also not assigned in the appeal. The counsel appearing for the appellant also on enquiry placed on record, the copy of the application filed before the Appellate Court wherein also not stated the total delay, but specifically stated in the affidavit that suit was of the year 1998 and the same was disposed of on 13.02.2001 wherein also categorically admitted that the appellant was a defendant and also - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024 engaged the counsel and not filed even written statement and suit was decreed. Consequent upon the judgment and decree, execution petition was also filed and filed the present appeal. In the appeal, except stating that no reasons are assigned why there was a delay and it is stated that not having the knowledge about the same and when the appellant being served and represented through counsel and not filed the written statement and subsequent to the same, not contested the matter and with delay of 21 years, first appeal was filed. The First Appellate Court also having considered the material on record, particularly considering what they have pleaded and taken note of suit of the year 1998 and judgment was passed on 13.02.2001 and relief also granted only for permanent injunction and while considering the appeal the point Nos.1 and 2, taken note of that no application is filed, a separate application for condonation of delay and also pressed into the service Order 41 Rule 3A, order sheet also discloses that I.A.No.1/2022 was filed invoking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024 Section 5 of Limitation Act but not mentioned the date of delay. However, the First Appellate Court considering the material on record, when there was an inordinate delay that appeal was filed in 2022 in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that sufficient cause has not been shown and even paragraph No.19 also taken note of, delay of 23 years cannot be condoned. Whether the ground urged by the appellant is that he came to know about the judgment and decree when the respondents have filed an execution petition to execute the judgment and the said ground cannot be accepted as the appellant herein was a defendant in the case and also represented through counsel and did not contest the matter and the same is discussed in paragraph No.19 and hence, not accepted the reasons assigned in the appeal and also comes to the conclusion that no plausible explanation was given and hence, rejected the same having taken note of there was a delay of 21 years in filing the appeal and also the suit is only for the relief of bare injunction and when there was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54189 RSA No. 656 of 2024 an unexplained delay of 21 years is not explained, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. At this juncture, counsel would submits that already comprehensive suit is filed by the appellant and others and hence, appellant can pursue the remedy before the Competent Court regarding comprehensive relief. With these observations, second appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66