- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2023 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2013 IN RSA No. 2000/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT CHAMAMMA W/O EEREGOWDA D/O LATE CHIKKEMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A BASARAJAPURA VILLAGE, K R NAGARA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571602 2. SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O SHIVANNA D/O LATE CHIKKEMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O KELLAHALLY VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570001 3. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O KRISHNA D/O LATE CHIKKEMADEGOWDA AGEE ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O 7TH ROAD, A CROSS, BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 K R NAGARA TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT-571602 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI BASVARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKEMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, BHOGADHI YELAWALA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570018 2. SMT PUTTALAXMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKEMADEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED (RESPONDENT No.1 IS TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF R2 ) …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED V/O DATED 29.10.2025, R1 IS TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2013 PASSED IN RA NO. 127/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2012 PASSED IN OS NO. 55/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE. IN RSA NO. 985/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O.LATE CHIKKAMADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. BELAVADI VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 MYSORE-570002. ...APPELLANT (V/O DATED 18.12.2025 BASAVARAJU, APPELLANT) AND: 1. SMT CHAMAMMA W/O. EEREGOWDA, D/O. LATE CHIKKAMADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT.BASAVARAJPURA VILLAGE, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570002. 2. SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O. SHIVANNA, D/O. LATE CHIKKAMADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT. KELLAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570002. 3. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O. KRISHNA, D/O. LATE CHIKKAMADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT 7TH ROAD, A CROSS, BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION, K.R.NAGAR TOWN, 4. SMT PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAMADEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 V/O DATED 29.10.2025, R1 TO R3 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R4) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 21.2.13 PASSED IN R.A.NO.127/2012 ON THE FILE OF C/c VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 15.2.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.55/2009 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The RSA No.2000 of 2013 is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.127 of 2012 by the learned VI Additional District in Mysore. 2. The appellants in RSA No.2000 of 2013 filed an application I.A.No. 1 of 2023 for condonation of delay of more than 10 years in filing the appeal. In support of an application, appellant No.1 filed an affidavit stating that the appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.127 of 2012 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 dated 21.02.2013 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Mysore, filed the appeal in RSA No.2000 of 2023. It is also stated that defendant No.1 also filed an appeal in RSA No.985 of 2013. It is stated that the appellants have forgotten to instruct their counsel to file a separate appeal, due to lack of knowledge and two advocates are engaged in two RSA’s. They are not able to understand that they have to file a separate appeal, to claim the shares sought in OS No. 55 of 2009. It is stated that the appellants are uneducated and they are not having the knowledge of the legal proceedings. Hence, prays to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Appellants filed a suit in OS No. 55 of 2009. The said suit came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15.02.2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of suit in OS No. 55 of 2009, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.127 of 2012. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 4. The first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 55 of 2009 and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by vide judgment dated 21.02.2013. 5. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, preferred an appeal in RSA No. 985 of 2013. 6. The appellants have appeared in the said case in 2015. Despite appearance in RSA No. 985 of 2013, the appellants have not taken any steps to file the separate appeal. After lapse of more than 10 years, the appellants filed this regular second appeal. There is an inordinate delay in filing appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 disposed of on 25.02.2022, held that when it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone the delay is required to be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs vs. Karnataka Housing Board in Civil Appeal No. 11794 OF 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the expression “sufficient cause” is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. The Court must not condone gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or casual indifference, for to do so would undermine the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and destabilise the certainty that limitation law seeks to secure. In the case on hand the appellants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning delay of 10 years. 8. The Court should bear in mind while exercising the jurisdiction. It has the duty to protect the rights of the citizen, but simultaneously, it has to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person without reason approaches the court, on their leisure or pleasure, the court be under legal obligation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 to scrutinize whether the lis is at a bilated stage, should be entertained or not. It may be noted that the delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances, delay and latches may not be a fatal, but in most circumstances, the inordinate delay would not only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the door of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of the litigant/litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. The delay does bring in hazards and causes injury to the lis. A Court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or, for that matter, ‘Rip Van Winkle’. Thus, there is delay in filing the appeal. Such an inordinate delay of 10 years in filing a regular second appeal does not deserve any indulgence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 Hence, on the grounds of delay and latches, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. 9. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. I.A.No.1/2023 is hereby rejected. Consequently, the RSA No.2000/2023 is dismissed. ii. In RSA No.985/2013, the appellants called out. None appears for the appellants. As the appeal is of the year 2023, it shows that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5409 RSA No. 2000 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 985 of 2013 iii. Pending interlocutory application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV