- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1408 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O JOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS LALITHADRIPURA ILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TQ. 2. SMT. SUNDARAMA W/O SUNDARAMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS PUTEGOWDANAHUNDI PALYA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KUMARA S/O LINGAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE, HOUSE NO.148, VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TQ. 2. SMT. RATNAMA W/O ANDANI, 67 YEARS HOUSE NO.148, LALITADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TQ. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021 3. PUTTATAYAMA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S (R3 DEAD APPELLANT 1 AND 2 RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R3) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGANNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.35/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU. ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.649/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SR. C.J. MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2021 which is filed to condone the huge delay of 1346 days in filing the appeal. 2. Affidavit of appellant No.1 – Rajamma is filed in support of the said application. In the affidavit, it is contended that suit filed by the appellants got decreed in part by considered judgment dated 05.12.2012. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021 3. Being not satisfied with the decree that has been passed by the Trial Court, it is these appellants who had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.35/2013. 4. Said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court by order dated 18.04.2016. 5. Cross appeal filed by respondent No.1/defendant was allowed and suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed. 6. Matter was left at that by the parties. A belated appeal came to be filed before this Court wherein there is a huge delay of 1346 days. Application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. 7. In the affidavit, Rajamma has contended that after the order came to be passed in the First Appellate Court, efforts were made to file the second appeal in time but relatives and well wishers of the family wanted to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021 mediate and negotiate the dispute with the respondents and therefore, they kept quite. 8. However, the relatives who tried to mediate, left the idea of mediating between the parties on account of the adamancy of the respondents and therefore, belated appeal came to be filed. 9. Who is the relative who assured the parties and tried to mediate is not even mentioned in the affidavit. Atleast, his affidavit should have been filed. 10. Further, when was the mediation effort made and who are all the parties present and whether the appellants were also present in the said mediation and who were all present from the respondents, whether it is defendant No.1 or all other parties who tried to settle the dispute amicably is not forthcoming as the suit is one for partition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021 11. No other material details are forthcoming or pleaded in the application with regard to the alleged effort of mediation. 12. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the averments made in the affidavit is not sufficient to condone the huge delay of 1346 days in filing the present appeal as the cause shown in the affidavit cannot be termed as ‘sufficient cause’ as is found in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Moreover, rights of the parties have been settled long back. 13. Hence, application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. 14. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77