IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2018 (P-INJ) BETWEEN:
SRI THIRUMALAIAH SON OF SRI LAKKAIAH AGE 62 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOWDRIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD. B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. GANGADHARAIAH SON OF SRI. RANGAIAH AGE 58 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOWDRIPALYA , KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130.
2. SRI KALAPPA SON OF SRI LAKKAIAH AGE 58 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOWDRIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130.
3. SRI GOVINDAIAH SON OF SRI LAKKAIAH AGE 49 YEARS R/AT CHOWDRIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130. ... RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2008 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 41 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KUNIGAL DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.267 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., AT KUNIGAL.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2018 which is filed for condonation of delay of 3454 days, which is about ten years, in filing the present appeal calling in question the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2008 in R.A.No.41/2006.
2. This appeal in R.A.No.41/2006 is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.267/1996, a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and others from interfering with the first respondent’s possession of agricultural land in survey No.20 of Muthugadahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. The trial Court, on appreciation of the rival evidence, has concluded that the respondent No.1 is able to establish his purchase and possession of the aforesaid land as well as interference by the appellant and the other respondents declining to accept the appellant’s defence of adverse possession. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the trial Court’s judgment in R.A.No.41/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kunigal.
3. The present appeal is filed as aforesaid belatedly after about 10 years from the date of the judgment by the appellate court. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the appellant approached his counsel in the first week of January 2009 with instructions to file the present appeal. However, in the meanwhile, i.e., before the appeal could be filed, a panchayath was convened and the respondent No.1 assured the appellant that he would not interfere with the appellant’s purported possession of the aforesaid land. The respondent No.1, contrary to the assurance made before the Panchayath, created problems for the appellant in the year 2018. As such, the present appeal is filed.
4. It is indeed settled that the Courts cannot take a pedantic approach in considering the reasons assigned for condonation of delay and the Courts must take a pragmatic approach to realistically assess the reasons to explain the delay. A useful reference can be made in this regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Director of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, reported in [(2013) 12 SCC 649]. However, in the present case, except a bald assertion about having approached the learned counsel in the month of January 2009 and a Panchayath being convened immediately thereafter, the appellant has not placed any other detail on record. In the absence of the details as regards the panchayath being convened, and in the absence of necessary material to corroborate such reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is not able to satisfactorily explain the delay. As such, I.A.1/2018 is dismissed and consequentially the appeal also stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE nv Ct:sr