- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32031 RSA No. 522 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2020 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRIRAMAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BETHAMNGALA BETHAMANGALA TOWN BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHINGIRIYAPPA S/O LATE KADIRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A). SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE SHINGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A A.D. COLONY, NEAR BEHIND POLICE STATION BETHAMANGALA ALUK - 563 114. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A)) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.92/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE 02.12.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.250/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. JMFC, K.G.F. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32031 RSA No. 522 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard on I.A.No.1/2020. 2. Same is filed for condonation of huge delay of 1005 days in filing the present appeal. 3. In the affidavit in support of the said application, it is contended by the appellant that after the judgment was passed by the First Appellate Court, the appellant was suffering from jaundice and he was taking treatment in a village at Tamil Nadu State. 4. It is his further case that after the treatment, he was advised rest till recovery; he recovered from the illness only in the month of November, 2019. Thereafter, consulted the Advocate to file the present appeal. As such, delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. 5. To substantiate the fact of illness of the appellant, there is no material on record and illness of jaundice cannot stay for years together. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32031 RSA No. 522 of 2020 6. When these aspects of the matter was put across to counsel for the appellant as to the non-sufficiency of reasons, learned counsel for the appellant took time to file better affidavit to explain the sustained illness. 7. However, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he has prepared the better affidavit, but appellant is not interested in swearing to the better affidavit and pursue the matter. 8. Appeal is of the year 2020 and yet to be admitted and huge delay of 1005 days is not properly explained. 9. As such, left with no alternative, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the huge delay. 10. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 is rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35