- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHYAVANTHRAMMA W/O. LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 2. SMT. LAKKAMMA D/O. LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 3. SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O. LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT MUGALI VILLAGE AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.A. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MALLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1(A). SRI THIPPESHAPPA S/O. LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 1(B). SMT. SHAVANTRAMMA W/O. LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 1(C). SRI HARISHA Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 S/O. LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT BAGGAVALLI VILLAGE AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 547 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2007 PASSED IN RA NO. 35/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.05.2005 PASSED IN OS NO. 1571997 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Dn) AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for appellants. 2. Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs has filed I.A.No.1/2025 to condone delay of 5874 days in filing the appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 3. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents. 4. I have perused the affidavit annexed to the application. The reasons assigned for seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of 5,874 days in filing the appeal are stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit annexed to the said application, which read as under: "Para 5: I submit that I was not feeling well over the past several years and I am not educated and worldly wise and hence I could not contact my advocate in Bengaluru to file this Appeal. Hence, there is a delay in filing this Regular Second Appeal. Para 6: The Judgments and Decrees of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court are illegal and unlawful and I am likely to succeed before this Hon'ble Court, if accompanying application is allowed, no hardship or prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. On the other hand, if accompanying application is not allowed, great hardship and irreparable injury would be caused to me." 5. An appeal is required to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. In the event of delay, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 appellants must assign proper, cogent and convincing reasons explaining the delay. It is incumbent upon the appellants to satisfactorily explain delay and demonstrate “sufficient cause” for seeking condonation of such delay. In the absence of such sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Legal Representatives and Others v/s Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 12 Supreme Court Cases 336, has elaborately dealt with the manner how an application for condonation of delay is required to be considered, wherein para-28 reads as under: "Para 28: On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: 28.1 Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 28.2 A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; 28.3 The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; 28.4 In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; 28.5 Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; 28.6 Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; 28.7 Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and 28.8 Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently laid down the principles governing the consideration of applications for condonation of delay, which are to be applied having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. In the present case, there is an apparent delay of 5,874 days, i.e., nearly 17 years, in preferring the appeal. The appellants, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court, have filed the present appeal calling in question the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2007 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 passed in R.A.No.35/2005 by the Fast Track Court, Tarikere. The appellants-plaintiffs were fully aware of the dismissal of the first appeal. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the appellants-plaintiffs to prefer the present appeal within a reasonable period of time. Even assuming there was a delay, the plaintiff was duty-bound to satisfactorily explain the same by assigning sufficient and reasonable cause. 9. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, this Court does not find any justifiable ground or satisfactory explanation constituting “sufficient cause” for condonation of the inordinate delay of 5,874 days. 10. This is a classic case of the appellant having slept like a Kumbhakarna, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v/s Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others reported in (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 649, wherein para-30 reads as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 "Para-30:- At this juncture, we are obliged to state that the persons who are nominated or inducted as members or chosen as Secretaries of the Managing Committees of schools are required to behave with responsibility and not to adopt a casual approach. It is a public responsibility and anyone who is desirous of taking such responsibility has to devote time and act with due care and requisite caution. Becoming a member of the committee should not become a local status syndrome. A statutory committee cannot remain totally indifferent to an order passed by the court and sleep like “Kumbhakarna”. The persons chosen to act on behalf of the Managing Committee cannot take recourse to fancy and rise like a phoenix and move the court. Therefore, this Court does not find any good ground or sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 5,874 days. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay itself. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23517 RSA No. 611 of 2025 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26