- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3851 RSA No. 1323 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. V. SHANKARAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAGIRI RAO @NDIGE VENKATAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 814, 'VENKATAGIRI, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SIDDESHAPPA S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. YETHISHAPPA, S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, AGED BOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI. VEERAPPA, S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. SRI. MALLESHAPPA, S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3851 RSA No. 1323 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SL NO.1 TO 5 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O DEVAKATHI KOPPA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577 126. 6. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 7. TAHSILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 8. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, BYKAMPADI, MANGALURU - 575 011. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2023 PASSED IN RA NO. 56/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO. 448/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, C/C I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3851 RSA No. 1323 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT I.A.no.1/2025 is filed for condonation of 567 days' delay in filing appeal. 2. Sri H. Manjunath, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is aged about 84 years suffering from old age ailments and financial crisis etc. It was submitted even some time was spent in collecting documents and preferring appeal. In paras 4 and 5 of affidavit filed in support of application it was submitted, sufficient explanation was offered and seeks for condonation of delay by allowing application. 3. It is also submitted that interests of Government and KIADB were also involved, and therefore, liberal view is also required to be taken. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused application and affidavit in support of application thereof. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3851 RSA No. 1323 of 2025 5. It is settled legal principle that only on establishment of a sufficient cause, delay can be condoned and it is not quantum of delay, but cause that would matter. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1093 has stated that in case of lack of proper explanation, Courts would not be justified in condoning delay. 6. In instant case, there is a delay of 567 days and only explanation offered is about appellant being old aged and suffering from financial crisis and time is stated to have been spent in arranging documents. It is also stated that appellant is suffering from memory loss and unable to walk and travel for long distance. However, same is not supported by any material. No medical Certificate or records are appended to affidavit. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel that appellant was dependant on his children. If it is so, there would be no impediment in pursuing appeal with assistance of his children. Thus, explanation for delay does not indicate 'sufficient cause'. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3851 RSA No. 1323 of 2025 Hence, I.A.no.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal and I.A.no.2/2025 filed for stay also stand dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33