K. BHAGYAMMA AND ORS. Vs. MANGAPPA AND ORS.
LAWS(KAR)-2017-4-68
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (FROM: BENGALURU)
Decided on April 19,2017

K. Bhagyamma And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Mangappa And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR,LAND ACQUISITION,ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER V. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARAVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.)Heard Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri M.R. Krishnamurthy, learned Advocate appearing for respondents. Perused the records. Petitioners herein had filed a suit O.S. No. 38 of 2006 for declaration and recovery of possession of suit property against respondents. Said suit came to be decreed on 21-10-2009. Petitioners filed Execution Petition No. 34 of 2010 and took possession of some of the properties. On notice being issued in the execution proceedings, respondents 1 to 6 appeared and thereafter filed an appeal in R.A. No. 64 of 2016 (old No. 12 of 2013). There was delay of 10 months in filing the appeal. Hence, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 came to be filed seeking condonation of delay and it was allowed by First Appellate Court by order dated 18-1-2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P. No. 8744 of 2013. This Court was of the view that each of the appellant had to explain the cause for delay and as such, by order dated 12-8-2014 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order and matter came to be remitted back to the First Appellate Court for adjudication afresh. Thereafter, appellants-2 to 6 got themselves examined as P.Ws. 1 to 5. On behalf of respondents, second respondent who was the second plaintiff before Trial Court was examined as R.W. 1. After considering the evidence tendered by the parties, First Appellate Court though opined that cause shown by appellants is not to full satisfaction, allowed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that Courts have to adopt liberal approach and as such, condoned the delay on payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27-3-2017, respondents 1 to 3 before First Appellate Court have preferred these writ petitions.
(2.)Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners has vehemently contended that First Appellate Court ought not to have condoned the delay particularly in the background of there being no cause, much less sufficient cause having been shown by the appellants. He would also submit that evidence tendered by the parties itself did not inspire confidence in the mind of First Appellate Court and as such, it did not accept the cause shown and as such delay ought not to have been condoned. Hence, he seeks for allowing the writ petitions and prays for setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
(3.)Per contra, Sri Krishnamurthy, learned Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 would support the impugned order.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.