- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100450 OF 2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. KIRAN S/O. GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE. 2. SMT. SUMAN D/O. GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE. 3. SMT. PRIYANKA D/O.GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE. 4. SMT. PREETI D/O. GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, ALL ARE R/O.H.NO.29, 15TH MAIN, M. C. LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040. ALL ARE NOW R/O.536, 2ND FLOOR, 14TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN, JP NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. (APPELLANT NO.2 TO 4 ARE REPRESETED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER I.E., APPELLANT NO.1 KIRAN S/O. GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TRINETRA @ JAYASHRI D/O. GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PLOT NO.28, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SIDDESHWAR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 HUBBALLI-580031, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. PRAJWAL @ VEERESH S/O. GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PLOT NO.28, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SIDDESHWAR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031, DIST. DHARWAD. 3. SMT. NAGARATNA W/O. GURUSIDDAYYA KAMBALIMATH, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PLOT NO.28, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SIDDESHWAR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031, DIST. DHARWAD. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, NO.568/1, FIRST MAIN ROAD, NEAR AKSHAY COLONY, LAXMI NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021, DIST. DHARWAD. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, VIJAY BANK, SARASWATPUR BRANCH, KALAGHATAGI ROAD, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AMRUTH V. JOIS, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN RA NO.5015/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN REJECTING IA NO.1 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.31/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFFS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This regular second appeal is filed by defendants No.2 to 5, challenging the order dated 12.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XLI Rule 3A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in R.A.No.5015/2024 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi1. 2. By the said order, I.A.No.I filed under Order XLI Rule 3A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2022 passed in O.S.No.31/2017 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi2. 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession, which was decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants No.2 to 5 preferred a regular appeal before the First Appellate Court. There was a delay of 482 days in preferring the regular appeal. The First Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, dismissed the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by it, defendants No.2 to 5 have preferred the present regular second appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that defendant No.2 answered sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, but without appreciating the same and without dealing with the merits substantially, only on technical reasons, dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the appellants are deprived of an opportunity to put forth their case on merits. Thus, prayed to remand the case to the First Appellate Court for considering the case afresh on merits. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the said proposal and submitted that the Trial Court has passed final decree and therefore all controversies were put at rest, and hence, there is no scope for adjudicating the case on its merits. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the submissions by both the counsels, the following point that arise for consideration is: “Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of a delay of 482 days in filing the appeal, without considering the case on merits, thereby depriving the defendants of their right to put forth their case on merits? 9. The suit filed for partition was decreed. Against which, defendants No.2 to 5 have preferred a regular appeal before the First Appellate Court; however, there was a delay of 482 days in filing the appeal. Thereafter, the defendants obtained certified copies and filed an application seeking - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 rectification of errors in the judgment and decree. Accordingly, an application filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for correction was allowed and corrections were rectified. However, the defendant No.2 does not make any efforts to obtain fresh certified copies of the judgment and decree, resulting in an inordinate delay. Further, defendant No.2 had gone to Singapore due to professional commitments and for the purpose of earning his livelihood, which was also contributed to the delay in preferring the appeal. 10. Considering the explanations offered by the defendants, whatever may be their plausibility, the fact remains that the defendants have been deprived of an opportunity to put forth their case merits in the appeal. The First Appellate Court dealt with the matter only on the delay, without touching upon the merits involved in the case. In such circumstances, the First Appellate Court could have considered the application for condonation of delay more liberally and adjudicate the appeal on its merits. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 11. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned, and the First Appellate Court is directed to hear the appeal on its merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. Therefore, the order dated 12.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XLI Rule 3A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in R.A. No. 5015/2024 by the First Appellate Court alone is liable to be set aside by condoning the delay, and the matter is required to be remanded to the First Appellate Court to hear the appeal afresh on merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Therefore, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative. 13. Hence I proceed to pass the following. ORDER i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 ii) The order dated 12.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XLI Rule 3A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in R.A.No.5015/2024 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, is set aside. iii) The R.A.No.5015/2024 is remanded and restored on its original file enabling the First Appellate Court to hear the appeal on its merits afresh consideration in accordance with law. iv) Both parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 23.02.2026 without expecting any notice from the Court. v) If any final decree has been passed, the same shall be kept in abeyance, subject to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1075 RSA No. 100450 of 2025 the result of the appeal in R.A.No. 5015/2024. vi) The first appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from 23.02.2026, excluding the summer vacation period. vii) All contentions are kept open. viii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP para Nos.1 to 11 ASN para Nos.12 to end CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38