IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1360 OF 2013 Between:
Smt. Chandramma, W/o. Shri. Krishnappa, Since deceased by L.R. Smt. Kariyamma, R/at No.31, Kamalanagar, Bengaluru – 560 079, Rep. by her G.P.A. Holder, Smt. Rathnamma, W/o. Sri. C.D. Narasimhaiah, R/at No.991, NGO’s Colony, Kamalanagara, Benglauru – 560 079. …Appellant (By Sri. K. Varaprasad, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary to the Government, Department of Housing and Urban Development, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Kandaya Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
4. The Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bengaluru, N.R.Square, Bengaluru – 560 002. …Respondents (By Smt. M. Geetha, HCGP for R1 to R3; Sri. S.H. Prashanth, Advocate for R4) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2008 passed in O.S.No.1140/1997 on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the appellant’s counsel and respondents’ counsel on I.A.No.1/2013 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1767 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the affidavit, it is seen that the appellant’s suit in O.S. No.1140/1997 was decided on 25.06.2008. The appellant has stated that on 23.08.2013, when some strangers tried to trespass over the suit property and dispossess her, she thought of consulting her lawyer again. It is stated that on the advice of her counsel, she came to know that she should have preferred an appeal. The appellant has also filed additional affidavit, in which, it is stated that adjacent owners also filed suits in O.S.Nos.1141/1997, 1142/1997 and 1143/1997 against the respondents for permanent injunction when the respondents tried to form road and that they also preferred appeals challenging the dismissal of their suits. The appeals were allowed and the suits were remanded to trial Court. Therefore, it is stated that this appeal also requires consideration by condoning delay.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the reasons given by the appellant are sufficient for condoning delay and the same is opposed by the respondents’ counsel.
3. The affidavit very clearly shows that the appellant was aware of the decree passed on 25.06.2008. There is no explanation as to why she did not file appeal within time after suit was decided. She kept quite till 23.08.2013. If the adjacent owners preferred appeals challenging the judgment in their suits and their appeals were allowed and suits were remanded, the same cannot be considered as sufficient cause for condoning delay in preferring this appeal. It appears that the appellant was negligent and sleeping over the matter. Delay is inordinate and it cannot be condoned. Application is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NS