- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10348 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT KENCHAMMA W/O LATE M.B.THIMMAIAH AGED 83 YEARS, R/AT ACHAREDDI VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127 REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER AND SON SRI A.T.PREMAKUMAR S/O M.D.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT ACCHARADI VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 AND: 1. SMT H R SAROJA W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT: AVAREKADU VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127. 2. SMT. H.R.VEDAVATHI W/O O.P.JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT: HANUBALU HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573127. 3. SRI. H.R.CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. SRI H.R.GIRISHA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, SMT.VEENA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O LATE H.R.GIRISHA 5. SRI.CHARAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE H.R.GIRISHA 6. KUM.RACHANA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O LATE H.R.GIRISHA 7. SRI.H.R.PARAMESHA S/O LATE RUDRAPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 SL.NO.3 TO 7 ARE R/AT HURUDI VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 127. 8. SRI. H.M.BASAVARAJU S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT: NARVE VILLAGE AND POST, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115. 9. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHARA S/O RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT: HUGGE VILLAGE, BETTADAMANE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132. 10. SRI. RAVI S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 11. SRI.NANDEESHA S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SL.NOS.10 & 11 ARE R/AT: NELIKA VILLAGE, THUMBADEVANAHALLI POST, BELUR TALUK HASAN DISTRICT - 573 115. 12. SMT.NANJAMMA W/O THAMMANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT: B.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, GONIBEEDU HOBLI, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 MOODIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132 13. SMT. RADHA W/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT: KUNNAHALLI VILLAGE, HALASE POST, MOODIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132 14. SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O SUBBAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS, SRI VEDAMURTHY S/O SUBBAIAH AGED 46 YEARS 15. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI D/O SUBBAIAH AGED 43 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE, KYAMANAHALLI POST, HANBAL HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK PIN - 573 165. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7; R8 TO R15 are served) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPURA IN MISC.NO.4/2020; QUASH THE - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 ORDERS DATED 28.01.2022 PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAKALESHPURA IN MISC NO.04/2020 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND RESTORE THE APPEAL ON RECORD TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON MERITS UNDER ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 01.04.2021 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAKEALESHPURA IN FDP NO.2/2013 REJECTING THE IA NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC UNDER ANNEXURE-E, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court Sakleshapura (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court'). 2. Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 filed a suit for partition, which came to be decreed. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal, challenging the said judgment and decree and along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court by refusing to accept the reasons assigned in the application. It is submitted that the petitioner in the affidavit accompanying the application has assigned the cause as to why, the appeal could not be preferred within the stipulated time. It is also submitted that the mother of the petitioner, Smt.Thopamma, had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner as well as her husband with regard to the suit schedule property and the said Will was misplaced and later, when her son shifted the house, he noticed the Will and placed the same with the petitioner and on securing such Will, appeal came to be filed and the said reason is sufficient to condone the delay. However, the Trial Court has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 miscellaneous petition, in effect, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 3. It is also contended that the dispute is with regard to the immovable property between the family members. Hence, one opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to putforth her contention in the appeal by fixing the timeline to decide the appeal. Hence, she seeks to show one indulgence by condoning the delay by directing the Appellate Court to entertain the appeal on merits. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed O.S.No.131 of 2008 seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 04.10.2012. The petitioner was defendant No.1 in the said suit. Paragraph No.3 of the judgment indicates that the suit summons was issued to the defendant, though - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 defendant No.1 appeared before the Court, even after giving sufficient opportunities, did not file her written statement, defendant Nos.2 to 8 have filed written statement belatedly. Be that as it may. 6. The petitioner/defendant No.1 assailed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.131 of 2008 by preferring a regular appeal before the Appellate Court. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'The Act') seeking to condone the delay of 7 years and 112 days in preferring the said appeal. The said application was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2020. The Appellate Court, considered the said application by permitting the petitioner to adduce the evidence. The GPA holder of the plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and got marked certified copy of the Will as Ex.P1 and GPA as Ex.P2. The Appellate Court, under the impugned order rejected I.A.No.1, filed under Section 5 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 7. It is to be noticed that the petitioner, in support of the application for condonation of delay filed an affidavit, which indicates that the petitioner has taken a stand that one Smt.Thopamma, mother of the petitioner executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and her husband and the said Will was misplaced. The fourth un- numbered para of the affidavit does not show any cause, for the enormous delay but it speaks about the merits of the case. In other words, the petitioner is contending that under the Will executed by her mother, she acquired the right over the property. The un-numbered paragraph No.5 of the affidavit accompanying the application indicates that very recently, about two months back, the petitioner's third son, Sri.Murthy, who is living in Hassan separately with his family since 15 years, who while recently shifting to his newly constructed own house, found the said Will with his belongings. Soon after knowing about the said Will, the deponent's son immediately handed over the Will to the petitioner. Hence, in order to make one more - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 attempt to contest the above case reoccurred in the mind. As such, appeal is preferred. 8. It is to be noticed that the petitioner in the affidavit intended to convey that, Will was misplaced, her son traced the Will while shifting his residence and on tracing the Will, appeal is preferred. In my considered view, such an self-assertion in the affidavit can be termed as an explanation, nor a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 7 years 112 days. The Appellate Court, by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner recorded a clear finding that the petitioner has failed to show 'sufficient cause' to condone the enormous delay of 7 years 112 days. I do not find any error or perversity in the order under impugned. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal is required to be considered on merit, no doubt, appears to be interesting but the same cannot be entertained at this point of time. As the Appellate Court has noticed that the Final Decree Proceedings was filed based on the judgment and decree - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010218822022 NC: 2026:KHC:46110 WP No. 10348 of 2022 and is pending from last 7 years, considering the aforesaid fact as well, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Writ Petition is devoid of merit, same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22