IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT GULBMQGA
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NoVEMBié§R,e5
BEFORE ¢
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE-éA;.'St.¥5AC'HHéL?Uf§E.":'
RsA.No.83,R/2.o08"A/W _ '
M1sC.CVL.No.1501. 80 /2093;
Between:
1. Vaijinath S,/0
KhelgiYr§f§., 1. V'
2. Ka11m&fia'j.vJfa'iI.§ij-igsgfiiia.._Kh'¢1g:.'
Ag¢?-.58"Yf33*e=:;;Q°"F"Ni"- ' «..
3. Ktishalfatey 3/ tnath Khelgi
Age: V38 yrs_. .~
4. A.1X/Iadhiffafi S,/.0 Viaijtihtath Khelgi
38 Agri.,
" ~,Al1_ R./Ojfiakhangaon Village
'Tqi Dist: Bidar. . . . A§§*gL{,g.gqvpg
(Smt.S.S.ShiValee1a Adv)
' 1'.'T)attatray S / 0 Babu Khelgi
Age: 18 Yrs., OCC: Student.
2. Laleeta W/ o Babu Khelgi,
Age: 44 Yrs., Occ: Household
3. Babu S/ 0 Vaijinath Khelgi,
Age: 50 Yrs., Occ: Agri.,
All R/o Lakhangaon village _ ».. .p
Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar.
[R-1 to R-3 served &Ei;:n»reVpreser}_ted].«. "
;**$*$* A. »
This Regular Second 'Appeals' is 'filed of
C.P.C. against the Judgment-.._p and ~._Decree dated
10/12/2004 pasafii in' RJLV"DkL247/2004 Kfid
No.35/2000) on the""--fiie' of the "Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court, Bhalkifi Vdi'sI'faissin'g» appeal and
confirming the :Jt1"dgfnent"-_ and Decree dated
21/10/2000 'P'?3:tS§lsed'=._in: Ov~;'S.'vN'o--.i."17_8[1993 on the file of
the Civil Jud ge'If[J_.1i*. 'Di1,)*13haikLi.V ,
for Orders this day, the
court.Ade.liveretl_':'the ,fol1_owi1'1g:
hpioRDER
"*pHean ten; flu: ~~~~~ ruse. cmniisoiso/2009 Rm
V "of delay of 1025 days in fiiing the appeal.
appeilants in support of their application have filed
A an affidavit and it is the 4"? respondent who has sworn
“torf.the facts of the case. He states in the affidavit that
the counsel informed about the order of the lower
5′
“%i.t,___
Appellate Court in the first Week of March 2005 after
applying for the certified copies obtained the saifne in
the last week of March 2005 and advised to
appeal. Later, the counsel for the
were said to be bed ridden duehlto ill» T.
aged ailments for about one yelariarid
in patient in the Hospital”i’e»o:f’ being
shifted to Solapur and other
ailments. It is in submits that
he was filing the appeal.
In he claims that he
suffered =JaunVdie;e_llffer”~three months and his parents
were “b.edridde’n to Asthama and therefore, he
. if theremisl delay in filing the appeal. On these
thelfappellant has sought for condonation of
d”elay..__” ‘ if
2. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon
“the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2007 KAR
X
iwxm.
1893 {The State of Karnataka Represented by Revenue
Secretary Vs. H.B. Munivenkatappa} wherein there was
delay of 9 years and 7 months in preferring the
lower appellate Court had dismissed the
aggrieved by the same, the appea1…was p;>efér1~é’a.5’ef¢:¢ this » _
Court. .
3. This Court taking into con__sic1.eration_’v_th’at’there~.is”a
meritorious ease in the before. Court
condoned the delay of’9__years”and”seyen monlthsrafnd the fact
that the appeal was meritoisioilis __itse’i_;f. was considered as
suffiziiientllereluse eonldone.vthe delay. The respondents
though served .phai_:fe.»fn0tA”appeared. As could be seen from
the judgnic-rllts….’-of courts below, the plaintiffs had
‘ i11S:{.iU,.i’fCCi’~zth€ szi’it'”for partition and separate possession.
was between the parties has been admitted.
fact that there was joint family and joint family
properties is also not in dispute. The Trial Court held that
V’ properties are the joint family properties and ultimately
granted the share to the respondent. The perusal of the
5%