- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1333 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: MRS. SUMITHRA BAI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O MR NAGARAJA NAIKA R/AT MUDDINAKOPPA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND ALSO LIG 72, 2ND STAGE HUDCO, KALLAHALLI, VINOBHANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 204. REP BY HER HUSBAND AND GPA HOLDER MR NAGARAJA NAIKA S/O MR SEVYA NAIKA . …APPELLANT [BY SRI SYED SABIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JAI PRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. MR SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 61YEARS PROPRIETOR, VIJAYA SALES CORPORATION SAVARALANE ROAD R/O O T ROAD SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 202. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 2. MR RAMESH R AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O MR RAMASWAMY NAIKA, BUSINESSMAN R/O KHB COLONY KALLAHALLI, VINOBHANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 204. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.07.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.80/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.868/2013 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 12.07.2023 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga, in R.A.no.80/2022 and judgment and decree dated 18.08.2022 by III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga, in O.S.no.868/2013, this second appeal is filed. 2. Sri Syed Sabir, learned counsel appearing for Sri Jai Prakash Rao, Advocate for appellant submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in OS no.868/2013 and belated by 331 days. 3. It was submitted, same was due to fact that after obtaining certified copies, they were handed over along with other papers to a counsel at Bangalore, but for some reason, said counsel had not filed appeal it and misplaced certified copies. As time for filing appeal was running out, plaintiff applied and obtained fresh certified copies and instructed another counsel to file appeal. It was also stated that appellant was resident of Shivamogga and under impression that needful was done by counsel. Thus, there was sufficient cause for allowing application. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 4. Heard learned counsel and perused IA no.1/2024 along with affidavit. 5. Admittedly, this appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed after delay of 331 days. Explanation offered in paras 5 to 8 of affidavit filed in support of application it as follows: "5. I submit that subsequently, the Plaintiff has applied for the Certified copy of the Impugned Judgment passed in R.A.No.80/2022 and the Certified copy was obtained and the papers were handover to an Advocate at Bangalore and for some reason, the papers were not prepared to be filed and the Certified copy of the Judgment passed in R.A.No.80/2022 has been missing from the file and in view of the Limitation Running Out, the Plaintiff has obtained the Net Extract of R.A.No.80/2022 and has taken steps to apply for another set of the Certified copy of the Judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed in R.A.No.80/2022. That for the present the Appellant has produced the Net Extract of the Judgment passed in R.A.No.80/2022. 6. I submit that the Appellant is a resident of Shivamogga and that I am an Agriculturist and that the Appellant is a Home Maker and due to our pre-occupation, we were under the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 impression that the needful was being done and since the advocate to whom the file was entrusted, unable to filet the Appeal in time, the Appellant has engaged the services of the present advocate who has prepared the papers and the Appeal is filed today. 7. I submit that the subject matter of issue between the Appellant and the Respondents pertain to valuable Agricultural Land which is being harvested by the Plaintiff and myself and is a source of income from the crop and that there has been no intentional delay in approaching the Hon'ble Court and that since for reasons not known to the Plaintiff, the Appeal could not be filed in time and the present advocate has prepared the papers within two days and has submitted the Appeal today. 8. I submit that the number of days of delay mentioned in the accompanying application is honest, reasonable and not intentional and that the Hon'ble Trial Court had at the first instance granted an Interim Order of Temporary Injunction and the possession of the Schedule Property by the Plaintiff was prima facie accepted by the Trial Court, but on technical issue with regard to boundary in respect of the Schedule Property which is an Agricultural land and whereas the claim of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 Defendants was with regard to a site and not agriculture land and therefore, the Plaintiff had a prima facie case to plead before the Trial Court based on lawful possession and legal title which was supplemented by revenue records including RTC Extract which record the name of the Appellant in column No.9 and 12 (2) of the RTC Extract and that by condoning the delay no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents, since the Respondents have not claimed any right over the agricultural land described in the Schedule to the Memorandum of Appeal." 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that while considering application for condonation of delay, it is not quantum but cause that would require to be considered and where it is shown to be beyond control of party, it should be considered liberally. But, it has recently in case of Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093 held: "31. It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet." 7. In instant case, appellant was aware of passing of impugned judgment and even claims to have instructed counsel at Bangalore to file appeal by furnishing certified copies, but fails to disclose particulars such as date of entrustment, name of counsel and efforts made by appellant to verify about filing of appeal. On other hand, it is stated that to avoid limitation running out, plaintiff obtained fresh certified copy and instructed another counsel and preferred appeal, which if - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3710 RSA No. 1333 of 2024 true, would leave no scope for delay. However, there is delay of 331 days in filing appeal. Mere claim of entrustment without follow-up does not inspire this Court to accept explanation. Consequently, it is concluded that explanation is not satisfactory. 8. Hence, I.A.no.1/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33