- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3712 MFA No. 3263 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3263 OF 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. LOKESH BABU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. L. SURESHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. L. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. L. UMAPATHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. SMT. L. HEMAVATHY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 6. SMT. L. VEDAVATHY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 7. SMT. L. ASHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE CHILDREN OF A.C. LAKSHMANA MURTHY AND RESIDING AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, KYALANOOR POST, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3712 MFA No. 3263 of 2017 AND: 1. S. ZIAULLA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. S. SAMIULLA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE SON OF SAMIULLA, RESIDING AT NO.1099, SAMIULLA BUILDING, DASTAGIR ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.MAHENDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(c) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Santosh., counsel on behalf of Sri.M.S.Varadarajan., for the appellants has appeared in person. 2. For convenience’s sake, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3712 MFA No. 3263 of 2017 3. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.9648/2007 for the relief of a declaration that the sale deed dated 17.10.1994 executed by their father in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to the suit schedule property and the sale deed dated 02.11.2007, which defendant No.2 in turn executed in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 with respect to the suit schedule property are not binding on them. They also sought other consequential reliefs. 4. The suit was posted for the plaintiff’s evidence on 16.03.2011. On that day, the plaintiffs were not in a position to appear in the Court and give evidence, and consequently, the suit came to be dismissed for default. 5. The plaintiffs filed a Miscellaneous No.317/2013 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC seeking restoration of the suit. As there was a certain delay in filing the same, the plaintiffs also applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. In the restoration petition, as well as in the I.A. for condonation of delay, the plaintiffs stated the reasons as to why they could not lead evidence in the original suit, how they were not aware of its dismissal for default earlier, and how they did come to know - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3712 MFA No. 3263 of 2017 of the same later. The affidavit filed in support of the delay application also clearly stated when they came to know of the dismissal of the suit, and stated as to how the delay deserves to be condoned. The Trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the miscellaneous petition. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of appeal. 6. Counsel for the appellants presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and pursued the papers with care. 7. Whether the plaintiffs have made out grounds for the restoration of a suit dismissed for default. 8. The application for restoration must be filed within 30 days of the dismissal order (under Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963). It is observed that the suit was dismissed in default on 16.03.2011, but the restoration application was filed after a gap of nearly two years, which constitutes inordinate delay and a lack of due diligence on the part of the applicants. The plaintiffs have sought condonation of delay, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3712 MFA No. 3263 of 2017 citing their mother’s hospitalization as the reason for their inability to attend Court. However, this ground is demonstrably false, as the medical discharge summary clearly indicates the mother was admitted in 2012, long after the suit had already been dismissed. Notwithstanding the filing of an urgent copy application, neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel made any efforts to follow up on or obtain the said copy until 2013. The plaintiffs acted with gross negligence and failed to take the necessary steps for the restoration of the suit on time. 9. Whenever plaintiffs request the restoration of the suit, it primarily depends on satisfying the Court that there was "sufficient cause" for their non-appearance on the date fixed for the hearing. As no sufficient cause has been demonstrated for this inordinate delay, the application deserves to be rejected. The Trial Court is justified in rejecting the petition. 10. The appeal is dismissed, and the Trial Court's order is affirmed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3712 MFA No. 3263 of 2017 Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30