- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5882 RSA No.976/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2022 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. R MEENAKSHAMMA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS W/O LATE S.L. RANGANATH 2. SRI. M.R. LAKSHAMANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O LATE S.L. RANGANATH BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 1720 CH-13, 13TH CROSS ASHOKAPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU CITY 570 010 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P NATARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE PARASHIVAMURTHY R/AT NO.1715, 12TH CROS ASHOKAPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU CITY 570 010 2. SMT. P.S. PRABHAMANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE PARASHIVAMURTHY R/AT NO.1715, 12TH CROS ASHOKAPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU CITY 570 010 3. SRI. P.S. MAHESH PRASAD AGED ABOUT 36 YEAWRS S/O LATE PARASHIVAMURTHY Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5882 RSA No.976/2022 R/AT NO.1715, 12TH CROS ASHOKAPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU CITY 570 010 4. SMT. P .S. MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O LATE PRASHIVAMURTY W/OP MAHADEVASWAMY R/AT NO.18/23, HALASUR BENGALURU 560 007 5. SMT. P.S. RAJARASHMI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/OLATE PARASHIVAMURTHY R/AT NO.37, 3RD FLOOR OM SHAKTHI NILAYA SARASWATHIPURA HALASUR BENGALURU 560 007 6. SMT. P.S. MADHUSHREE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O LATE PARASHIVAMURTHY R/AT NO.37, 3RD FLOOR OM SHAKTHI NILAYA SARASWATHIPURA HALASUR BENGALURU 560 007 7. SRI.P.S. SHIVANANDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/OLATE PARASHIVAMURTHY R/AT NO.37, 3RD FLOOR OM SHAKTHI NILAYA SARASWATHIPURA HALASUR BENGALURU 560 007 8. SRI. P.S. MAYURA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O LATE PARASHIVAMURTHY R/AT NO.37, 3RD FLOOR OM SHAKTHI NILAYA SARASWATHIPURA HALASUR BENGALURU 560 007 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5882 RSA No.976/2022 9. SRI. P.S.MAHADEVA PRASAD S/O LATE PARASHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING IN INDIAN DEFENCE SERVICE AT SECUNDARABAD ANDHRAPRADESH 16 LIGHT CALVERY C/O 56 APO 10. THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION MYSURU 570 001 11. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE DIVISIONAL OFFICE-2 KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU 570 010 …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.03.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.111/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU ALLOWING APPEAL AND CONFIRM JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2006/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AN JMFC., MYSORE THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard on I.A.no.1/2023. 2. I.A.no.1/2023 is filed for condonation of delay of 658 days in filing appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5882 RSA No.976/2022 3. Sri P. Nataraju, learned counsel for appellants submits that impugned judgment was passed by first appellate Court on 26.03.2018 and certified copy was delivered on 04.07.2018. But appellant no.1, a housewife was suffering from old age related diseases and unaware of legal requirements had also suffered from financial difficulties. Therefore, she could not contact counsel and instruct to prefer appeal. In meanwhile, COVID-19 pandemic struck. 4. Only after appellants could arrange money with help of well-wishers and contacted counsel in June, 2022, appeal was filed. Thus, delay had accrued, same was bona-fide and beyond appellants' control and therefore, seeks for allowing application for condonation of delay. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused application and affidavit filed in support of application as well as better affidavit filed. 6. It is seen that, there is a delay of 658 days i.e., about two years. Though in affidavit there is some explanation given about prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic, applying for certified copy and instructing counsel to prefer appeal in June - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5882 RSA No.976/2022 2022, there is no explanation for period from 04.07.2018 when certified copy was delivered till advent of COVID-19 pandemic which was in March, 2020, except a vague and general assertion that appellant no.1 was a housewife, suffering from illness and not having source of income. 7. Appeal is filed by defendants no.1 and 2. While defendant no.1 may be aged around 80 years, defendant no.2 is 45 years. There is absolutely no explanation, why appeal could not be preferred by appellant no.2. Besides, there is no explanation or proper explanation for period from date of delivery of certified copy of judgment till advent of COVID-19 pandemic. In absence of explanation, negligence has to be implied. Thus, for want of good or sufficient explanation. I.A.no.1/2023 is rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22