SMT. ALAMELU vs SMT. DHANAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7476 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ALAMELU
W/O. SELVAM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.647, 29 MAIN ROAD
TH
CORPORATION COLONY, 9 BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 69.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DHANAMMA
W/O. LATE RAJA KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. SRI GUNASHEKAR
S/O. LATE RAJA KANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
3. SRI ABHIRAMI
D/O. LATE RAJA KANNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 ARE
TH
R/O. AT NO.652, 29 MAIN
TH
39 CROSS, CORPORATION COLONY
TH
9 BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 069.
4. KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
TH
B.B.M.P BRANCH, 4 FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
6. SRI V. DEEPAK
S/O. A.C. SETH VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
NO.201, JALPRASAD APARTMENTS
RD
3 CROSS, NAGAPPA STREET
BANGALORE - 560 020.
7. SRI MURTHY
S/O. SRI FATHER NAME NOT KNOW
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
8. SRI DANDAPANI
S/O. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
PARTIES 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT
SOUTHERN PORTION OF NO.652
TH
29 MAIN ROAD
CORPORATION COLONY
TH
9 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 060.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANOHAR B.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SANJAY YADAV, AGA FOR R4;
SRI M.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE ORDER DATED
10.03.2026)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(D) READ
WITH SECTION 104 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED IN MISC.NO 910/2014 BY
XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
CONSEQUENTLY, RESTORE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.7259/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for appellant on
I.A.No.1/2023.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-
petitioner, challenging the order dated 12.01.2022 passed
in Misc. No.910/2014 by XXVII Additional City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru (for short, 'trial Court').
3. Learned counsel for appellant has filed
I.A.No.1/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 515 days in
filing the appeal challenging the orders passed in Misc.
No.910/2014 by the trial Court.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for
appellant that the delay of 515 days has occurred for the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
reasons stated in paras - 3 and 4 of the affidavit annexed
to the application, which read as under:
"Para-3: Further I submit that, I am a house
wife and I am illiterate, I do not have worldly
knowledge, and also I am not aware of the court
procedures. I state that I was also not informed
about the dismissal of the petition filed by me and
the same was belatedly informed to me.
Para-4: I state that I recently discussed with
respect to the dismissal of the petition filed by me
with my elders and well-wishers. I state that I am
not financially sound and I have to depend on my
children for financial assistance. I state that as per
the advice of the said elders and well-wishers, I was
referred to the present advocate on record to file the
present appeal. Hence, there is delay in filing the
present appeal."
4.1 It is further contended that, for the reasons
stated hereinabove, the appellant was not informed about
the dismissal of the petition and came to know of the
same belatedly, resulting in a delay in filing the present
appeal challenging the order dismissing the miscellaneous
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
petition. The said miscellaneous petition had been filed by
the appellant seeking to set aside the order passed by the
trial Court in O.S.No.7259/2011, whereby the suit was
decreed ex parte in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for respondents has filed
objections to the said application for condonation of delay,
contending that no cogent, satisfactory or bona fide
reasons have been stated in support of the application or
in the affidavit annexed thereto, except for stating that the
appellant was not informed about the dismissal of the
petition and was informed of the same belatedly.
According to learned counsel, no grounds are made out to
explain the delay that has occurred in filing the appeal.
5.1 It is further contended that the appellant has
failed to show sufficient cause for explaining the delay of
515 days. It is submitted that, in view of the inordinate
delay, the appellant cannot be permitted to remain
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
inactive in the matter despite being aware of the
proceedings in the original suit, in which she was
represented by counsel and the subsequent execution
proceedings. It is further contended that possession has
already been taken by the respondents in the execution
proceedings. Therefore, it is further contended that no
grounds are made out by the appellant for condoning the
exorbitant and inordinate delay. Hence, learned counsel
for respondents seeks dismissal of the appeal.
5.2 Learned counsel for respondent has relied upon
the judgments in the cases of Pathapati Subba Reddy
(Died) By Legal Representatives and Others v/s
1
Special Deputy Collector (LA) and Ajay Dabra v.
2
Sunder Singh & Anr. , to contend that an inordinate
delay cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient
cause. It is further contended that the appellant cannot
1
(2024) 12 Supreme Court Cases 336
2
SLP (C) No.15848 of 2019 decided on 31.01.2023
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
seek condonation of delay without furnishing cogent and
sufficient reasons to the satisfaction of this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and
learned counsel for respondents, it is seen that the only
reason put forth by the appellant for condonation of delay,
as stated in para-3 of the affidavit, is that she is an
illiterate lady, unaware of the Court procedures and that
she was not informed about the dismissal of the petition
and came to know of the same belatedly. Apart from these
reasons, no other grounds have been urged in support of
the application for condonation of delay.
7. When the appellant files an application seeking
condonation of delay of 515 days, the onus lies upon the
appellant to provide cogent and sufficient reasons, to the
satisfaction of this Court, explaining the delay in filing the
appeal. Though the appellant contends that she was not
served with notice in the miscellaneous petition, the said
contention is to be considered in that context. However, in
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
the proceedings before the trial Court in the original suit,
the appellant was represented by an authorised counsel.
8. It is also forthcoming from the affidavit that the
counsel had not informed the appellant about the
dismissal of the miscellaneous petition. In both the original
suit and the miscellaneous petition, the appellant was
represented by counsel. Apart from the reasons stated in
para-3 of the affidavit, the appellant has not made out any
cogent or convincing grounds to establish bona fide
reasons or sufficient cause for condonation of delay, to the
satisfaction of this Court.
9. In view of the judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for respondents in the cases of Pathapati Subba
Reddy (Died) By Legal Representatives and Others
and Ajay Dabra stated supra , the Hon’ble Apex Court has
laid down the principles governing the explanation
required for condonation of delay. When there is an
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57955
MFA No. 7476 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010563562023
inordinate delay, the same cannot be condoned unless
cogent and satisfactory explanation is provided.
10. Coming back to the present case, I do not find
any good ground or cogent reason having been explained
by the appellant in the affidavit annexed to the
application. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. I.A.No.1/2023 is dismissed, as no cogent or
sufficient reasons are made out for condonation
of delay;
ii. In view of the dismissal of the said application,
the appeal also stands dismissed on the
ground of delay;
iii. This order shall not preclude the appellant from
preferring an appeal under Section 96 of CPC.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
CPN\List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9