IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.230/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT.KANTHAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
1. SMT.DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.12, SHATTIYAPPA ROAD UDAYANAGARA, K.R.PURAM BENGALURU – 560 016 2. SMT.KUPPAMMA W/O LATE C.VELU RAVI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. SRI GAJENDRA S/O LATE C.VELU RAVI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SMT.PARVATHI D/O LATE C.VELURAVI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. SMT.BHAVANI D/O LATE C.VELURAVI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R2 TO R5 ARE R/AT NO.10908, C.GOWTHAMNAGAR BANGERPET …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SOMASHEKARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI N.GOPALAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT DODDAMALLE VILLAGE TAKEL, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ASHWATH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2010 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN.), MALUR IN R.A.NO.107/2001 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.10.2001 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), MALUR IN O.S.NO.455/1992.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T No representation for the respondent.
2. There is delay of 2200 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed initially along with I.A.No.1/2017 it was stated that Counsel for the appellants did not communicate to them about dismissal of the appeal. It was also stated that appellant No.1 Dhanalakshmi underwent kidney transplantation, which caused delay.
3. Later another affidavit came to be filed claiming that Dhanalakshmi’s daughter-in-law by name Smt.Evelyn Richard underwent kidney transplantation, therefore, there was delay.
4. Nothing is available on record to show that appellant No.1’s son is one R.Murthy and Smt.Evelyn Richard shown in the medical records produced is his wife or she is the daughter-in-law of appellant No.1.
5. First appeal was dismissed in the year 2010.
Medical records produced is of the years 2013 and 2014 onwards. Apart from appellant No.1, there are four more appellants in the case. There is inordinate delay of 2200 days i.e. more than six years in filing the appeal. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. Reasons assigned to explain delay not satisfactory. Hence I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
KSR Sd/- JUDGE