- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19515 RSA NO.2221 OF 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2221 OF 2017 (RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K. SHANTHA MURTHY S/O K.L. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT N. KOTHURU VILLAGE, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KONAMMA W/O LATE B. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 2. SRI. SUBBA REDDY S/O GORLA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE MARAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 4. SRI. PEMMI REDDY S/O GORLA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 5. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE PEMMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19515 RSA NO.2221 OF 2017 6. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O GORLA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 7. SRI VENKATARAMA REDDY S/O GORLA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DEVAGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, BASETTIHALLI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. UDAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 02ND APRIL, 2011 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.60 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 21ST APRIL, 2007 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.156 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., AND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) (CONCURRENT CHARGE), SIDLAGHATTA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 02nd April, 2011 passed in Regular Appeal No.60 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19515 RSA NO.2221 OF 2017 JMFC., Chintamani (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 21st April, 2007 passed in Original Suit No.156 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC. and Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) (concurrent charge), Sidlaghatta (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for redemption of mortgage came to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed application IA.1 of 2017 for condonation of delay of 2314 days in filing the appeal. 3. Heard Sri. Muniraja M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. N . Udaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 7. 4. Sri. Muniraja M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of Court to the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application IA.1 of 2017 particularly to paragraphs 3 to 5 and submits that, the reasons assigned by the appellant are enough for sufficient cause to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19515 RSA NO.2221 OF 2017 condone the delay of six years in filing the appeal. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the application. 5. Per contra, Sri. N. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that, an inordinate delay of more than six years cannot be condoned as the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying application are not sufficient enough to condone the delay. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying delay application particularly at paragraphs 3 to 5 would makes it clear that the appellant was awaiting the communication from his advocate and also he was carrying out agricultural operations in the suit schedule property. It is also stated in the affidavit that, the younger brother of the appellant suffered from brain hemorrhage and later passed away. He further assigned the reason that, he had to perform the marriage of his deceased younger brother's two daughters and his own daughter and therefore, delay has been caused in filing the appeal. However, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19515 RSA NO.2221 OF 2017 in my considered opinion, the reasons assigned by the appellant for condonation of delay of more than six years cannot be considered as sufficient cause and further, no relevant document is produced to substantiate the reasons as stated in the affidavit. 7. Therefore, following the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF NAGALAND vs. LIPOK AO AND OTHERS reported in (2005)3 SCC 752, the application filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal is deserved to be dismissed as the appellant has not shown the sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, application IA.1 of 2017 is dismissed. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of application IA.1 of 2017 and appeal, all pending applications stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17