AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 11.06.2013 passed in R.A.No.17/2013. Since there is delay of 423 days in filing the appeal, the application in I.A.No.1/2014 is filed seeking condonation of delay. The reason assigned seeking condonation of delay is that the Raichur Division of the appellant was made as the second respondent to the appeal before the Court below and as such there was some confusion in the matter on consideration for the purpose of filing this second appeal.
At the outset, the reason as assigned would not appeal to this Court to be considered as a sufficient cause inasmuch as the first respondent impleaded to the appeal is the Gulbarga Division though the second respondent is shown as Raichur Division. Be that as it may, the respondents before the Lower Appellate Court were represented and the matter on being contested was disposed of by a considered judgment dated 11.06.2013. If that be the position, the respondents before the Lower Appellate Court namely the appellants herein being aware of the judgment being passed were required to take steps to file the appeal in time and the reason as put forth for the inordinate delay of 423 days would not be sufficient.
Even in that background, in order to consider as to whether the interest of justice would suffer if the delay is not condoned, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the merits involved in the case and the manner in which the Courts below have considered the matter. The trial Court, no doubt, by its judgment dated 04.02.2013 had dismissed the suit despite the plaintiffs having tendered evidence through PWs-1 and 2 and relied upon the documents at Exs.P1 to P6. The trial Court had thought it fit to accept the evidence of DW-1 and the documents at Exs.D1 and D2.
The Lower Appellate Court while re-appreciating the evidence and on arriving at its conclusion has made a detailed consideration with regard to the negligence which had caused the death and in that light had assessed the evidence available on record in the background of the contention that had been put forth by the appellants herein. In so far as the contention that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants herein, the Lower Appellate Court has referred to the evidence and the cross-examination of DW-1 and also the report of the Electrical Inspector and has arrived at the conclusion that from the same it is clear that the electrical live wire was not running at an accepted height from the ground level between the two electric poles and since the wire was at a low height, the incident had occurred and deceased Yankappa was electrocuted.
In so far as the contention that the electricity connection had been tapped illegally by the deceased, the Lower Appellate Court has referred to the notice dated 22.03.2010 at Ex.D2 and in that light has also taken into consideration the evidence to come to a conclusion that there was no electrical connection in use nor was there electrical implements in the house. It is in that light after having assessed the evidence on record, the legal position was kept in view and the Lower Appellate Court has arrived at the conclusion to decree the suit in the manner in which it has done. Therefore, in the said circumstance, when the Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence has recorded a finding of fact, the same in any event would not raise any substantial question of law for consideration in this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for this Court to condone the delay and entertain the instant appeal as no substantial question would arise herein.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2014 and the appeal stand dismissed. No costs.