Sri Rohan S/O Anil Salve v. Sri Jayavant S/O Parasharam Mirajkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100578 OF 2024 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. ROHAN, S/O. ANIL SALVE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN - MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT. NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶2SRI. VIJAY, S/O. RAJARAM GHATAGE, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, SECRETARY MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, NIPPANI, GHATTE GALLI, NIPPANI, AT: NIPPANI, TALUK: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR SRI. S.S YALIGAR, ADVOCATE)

Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad NC:(2026:KHC-D:1588-DB( WA(No.(100578(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( , AND:, , SRI.,JAYAVANT,,, S/O.,PARASHARAM,MIRAJKAR,, AGE:,60,YEARS,,, SECRETARY,OF,MARATHA,, VIDYA,PRASARAK,MANDAL,NIPPANI,, R/AT:,SAKHARWADI,,, NIPPANI,,AT:,NIPPANI,,, TALUK:,NIPPANI,,, DIST:,BELAGAVI,–,590,001., , SRI.,CHANDRAHAS,, S/O.,EKANATH,DHUMAN,, NOW,DECEASED,ON,08-11-2023, , SRI.,HARISH,RAMACHANDRA,TARALE,, NOW,DECEASED,ON,17-08-2020, , …,RESPONDENT, , (BY,SRI.,SANJAY,S.,KATAGERI,,ADV.,FOR,R1), , , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 4, OF, KARNATAKA,HIGH,COURT,ACT,,1961,,PRAYING,TO,,SET,ASIDE, THE, ORDER, PASSED, BY, THIS, HON'BLE, COURT, IN, W.P, NO.111276,OF,2019,DATED,17.12.2021,AND,ALLOW,THE,WRIT, PETITION,IN,ENTIRETY,WITH,EXEMPLARY,COSTS,BY,ALLOWING, THE,PRESENT,WRIT,APPEAL,IN,THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND, EQUITY., , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL,, ALONG, WITH, I.A., NO.2/2024, FOR, CONDONATION, OF, DELAY, IN, FILING, THE, APPEAL, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT, WAS, DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , ,

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

Aggrieved by the order, dated 17.12.2021, passed in W.P. No.111276/2019, the present writ appeal is filed.

¶2There is an inordinate delay of 1031 days in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal are as follows: "8. During the pendency of the instant writ petition the petitioner no.2 passed away on 17/08/2020 and petitioner no.2 had appeared in his individual capacity and the name of the petitioner no.2 was sought to be substituted with the name of the present respondent herein is officiating as the secretary. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court by order dated 17/12/2021 allowed the writ petition without considering the application for substitution. The learned Single Judge remitted the matter to District Judge to hold an enquiry under sec 25 of Karnataka Society's Registration Act. The registrar through an official has held an enquiry and writ petition is pending before this Hon'ble court. Hence the appeal.

¶9It is submitted that, after disposal of the writ petition the counsel for the appellants informed the appellants about the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The Chairman is not keeping good health and he is intermittently being admitted to the hospital at Kolhapur. It is submitted that, the appellants where under the bona-fide impression as section 25 is applicable. It is submitted that, the appellants 1 and 2 being the Chairman and Vice-Chairman could not meet at a place and came to unanimous decision to file an appeal. The decision to file the appeal was getting postponed. In the mean while the appellants came to know that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is against the dead persons and then as advised by the counsel, and also took opinion from several counsels from Dharwad and Bangalore who advised the appellants to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that, the appellants contacted the counsel in the month of July 2024 and counsel without any further delay prepared the appeal, hence there is delay in preferring the application and is because of the bona-fide reasons stated above, which is neither deliberate nor intentional and because of the bona-fide reasons stated above and hence it is just and equitable to condone the delay caused in filling this appeal."

The respondents have objected to the same.

¶3The explanation given by the appellants is not sufficient to condone the delay of 1031 days. The appellants are required to explain each and every day's delay satisfactorily, which they have failed to do so under the facts and circumstances of the case.

For the aforementioned reason, I.A. No.2/2024 is hereby rejected, and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

KMS / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24.1