IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1586/2015(INJ) BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. DEVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER DEVARAJAPPA, S/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI VARADARAJAN M.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. LAKKIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. LAKKIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHITRADURGA.
4. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.44/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOSADURGA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 28.10.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.250/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S.No.250/2005 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosadurga, has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in refusing his claim for permanent injunction with respect to suit schedule site said to be belonging to respondent No.1-Grama Panchayat.
2. Admittedly, this appeal is filed with an inordinate delay of 733 days. Hence, I.A. No.1/15 is filed seeking condonation of the same. Though this application is listed at the stage of issuance of notice, considering the enormous delay, this Court felt that the grounds urged for condonation of delay will have to be seen before considering issuance of notice on the said application in this appeal. That too in the background that the prayer of the plaintiff in both the Courts are rejected on the ground that the documents relied upon seeking permanent injunction being declared as fake.
3. Perused the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/15, which discloses that the appellant and the General Power of Attorney holder are claiming that they are illiterate agriculturists living in a remote village. According to them, after filing of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, they were expecting that the counsel on record would inform them about the outcome of the appeal. However, it is stated that till the end of June 2014, they did not receive any communication. Hence, they approached the counsel in his office at Hosadurga in the last week of June 2014 and at that time they came to know about the dismissal of the appeal. Thereafter, it is stated that they had applied for certified copy and the same was taken in the month of July, 2014. In view of financial difficulties, they could not go to Bangalore to meet their advocate and the appellant’s husband fell ill. In September 2015, they made arrangements to go to Bangalore and filed the appeal. Hence, there was a delay of 733 days. It is also stated that the delay is due to ill-health and financial difficulties. Though such grounds are urged, no documents are placed on record to substantiate said plea. Further, there is nothing on record to show that they came to know about the dismissal of the appeal in the month of June 2014 for the first time. This Court considered the application and found that no ground is made out to condone inordinate delay of 733 days, which comes to nearly two years. Therefore, in the fact situation the delay cannot be condoned. Hence, I.A.No.1/15 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE S*