- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010011292025 NC: 2026:KHC:36290 RSA No. 37 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: A. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O. LATE ANJANEYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKADASENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 105. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. GANESH SHENOY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ERAPPA, S/O. NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. CHANDRAPPA, S/O. KOTHAPPANAVARA NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. MUNIYAPPA, S/O. KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 4. NARASIMHA GOWDA, S/O. PILLAGIRIYAPPANAVARA NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010011292025 NC: 2026:KHC:36290 RSA No. 37 of 2025 ALL RESIDENT OF CHIKKADASENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 (ABSENT)) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.32/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.349/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri. S. Ganesh Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2. I.A. No.1/2025 is filed to condone the huge delay of 490 days in filing the present second appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010011292025 NC: 2026:KHC:36290 RSA No. 37 of 2025 3. In the affidavit, the appellant has stated that he is member of Shidlaghatta Bar Association and in his professional work and in the wake of the election to the Bar Association of Shidlaghata, he could not bestow his attention in filing the present second appeal in time. 4. Admittedly, delay is as huge as 490 days. Being a professional advocate aged about 66 years, it cannot be accepted that an advocate of that standing, would keep quiet about his rights that too, in respect of his personal matter, for 490 days. 5. Therefore, reasons assigned in the affidavit in support of I.A. No.1/2025 would not fall within the framework of 'sufficient cause' as is contemplated in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. Even on merits, this Court noted that there were earlier proceedings between the parties. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010011292025 NC: 2026:KHC:36290 RSA No. 37 of 2025 7. According to the plaintiff, during the pendancy of the suit, despite an Order of injunction, defendants high handedly constructed the structure in the suit property and therefore suit was also amended with a prayer for mandatory injunction. 8. On merits, learned Trial Judge noted that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. 9. Therefore, both for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, suit came to be dismissed. First Appellate Court concurred with the judgment of the Trial Court after revisiting to the factual aspects of the matter. 10. When once there was a loss of possession by virtue of the alleged illegal encroachment and construction of the property, plaintiff should have realized to amend the suit for the prayer of declaration and possession. Having failed to do so, dismissal of the suit by both the Courts are just and proper. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010011292025 NC: 2026:KHC:36290 RSA No. 37 of 2025 11. Nevertheless, if the cause survives and subject to all defences available to the defendants, plaintiff may get his grievances redressed in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. 12. As such, this Court does not find any good reasons to condone the huge delay of 490 days in filing the appeal. 13. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2025 is rejected. 14. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57