Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Gayathri marakalthi, W/O Late Laxman Marakala – Appellant
Versus
Rathi Marakalthi, D/O Late Gowri Marakalthi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal dismissed based on untimely filing. (Para 1 , 8 , 11) |
| 2. claims for partition based on joint possession. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. trial court granted relief of partition. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments on appeal regarding delay and representation. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
H.P.SANDESH, J.
1. This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2024 for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the second appeal along with the appeal. The first appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 12 years 7 months 14 days and the same has not been explained by the appellants herein.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties from the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant’s mother Bommi Marakalti was in possession and enjoyment of immovable properties of Pejemangoor village of Udupi Taluk. After the death of Bommi Marakalti, defendant No.1 along with her children has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant No.1 applied Fo
Delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained; ignorance or counsel's inaction are insufficient grounds to condone significant delay.
Ignorance of a decree does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal, especially when the applicant had legal representation.
The Court emphasized that mere allegations against counsel do not suffice as adequate explanation for a lengthy delay in filing appeals; adherence to statute of limitations is critical.
The law regarding the condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation, and negligence or lack of diligence renders an application for delay condonation unjustifiable.
The right to appeal should not be curtailed solely on technical grounds of delay where it may lead to injustice, especially in light of extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic.
The law of limitation must be applied rigidly, and a significant delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned without adequate and credible justification.
The court held that the appellants' explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and that they were aware of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, as evidenced ....
Vague explanations do not suffice for condonation of delay; a sufficient cause must be established for delay in filing appeals.
A party's lack of awareness of legal obligations does not suffice for condoning significant delays in filing appeals, particularly if represented by counsel.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
