Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
D. Takinaik S/o Dakya Naik – Appellant
Versus
Takri Bai W/o Late Hala Naika – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA , J.
1. Heard Sri Kashinath J.D., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.N. Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
2. The present appeal though listed for admission, taken up for consideration on merits having regard to the fact that the appeal of the appellant before the First Appellate Court came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and not on merits.
3. Brief facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.127/2017, which on contest came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018.
-
3.2. Being aggrieved by decreeing of the suit, defendant No.8 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.17/2022, challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Judge.
3.3. The suit was in respect of agriculture land, measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.84 of Maligenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk bounded on East by land belonging to Mutt, West by Anupinakatte road, North by Puradal main road and South by garden land of Kamal Jain.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court took into consideration that there was a delay of more than four years i
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.
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 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 ....
The government must provide a substantial explanation for delays in legal actions, and mere claims of public interest do not justify excessive negligence or inaction.
The court confirmed that a partition suit continues despite the death of a party, and the discretion to accept or reject a compromise petition must prevent illegalities.
The court upheld the dismissal of an appeal for delay due to insufficient cause, confirming that prior court appearances undermine claims of illness preventing timely action.
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
