A party's consistent efforts to negotiate and explain delays in legal proceedings can warrant the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is established, especially concerning property rights.

ORDER :

C.M. Poonacha, J.

The present writ petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 31.3.2015 passed in Appeal No.588/1999 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') and for the other reliefs.

2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that one Sri. M.G.Jagadish (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), a member of the second respondent - society, was allotted an industrial site bearing No.7 in Vijinapura Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring east to west 50 feet, north to south 100 feet in the Industrial layout called "OMR Layout" and possession of the said site was handed over to him vide Possession Certificate dated 17.6.1970. Construction in the said site was required to be undertaken within a specified time frame. Having failed to do so, the Board of the second respondent - society vide resolution dated 24.8.1989 cancelled the allotment of the said site and the said cancellation was communicated vide letter dated 8.9.1989 which was admittedly received on 12.9.1989. On 9.8.1996 a dispute was raised by the deceased before the Additional Director, Department of Industries and Commerce, which was the wrong forum for challenging the same and vide endorsement issued in August, 1997, the same was returned.

3. Thereafter, on 11.8.1997 a dispute was raised under Section 70 of the KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT , 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An application was filed for condonation of delay in prosecuting the dispute which was dismissed vide order dated 27.7.1999. Being aggrieved, Appeal No.588/1999 was preferred by the deceased before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence, WP No.1392/2000 was filed against the order passed by the Tribunal, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.6.2002 holding that the appeal was maintainable and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for consideration. Being aggrieved, the society preferred WA No.3857/2002 before a Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed on 1.10.2002. Subsequently, the Tribunal by order dated 12.1.2007 allowed Appeal No.588/1999, condoned the delay in raising the dispute and remanded the matter to the first respondent for disposal of the dispute on its merits.

4. In the meantime, vide registered Sale Deeds dated 10.11.2000 and 23.11.2000, respondent Nos.3 and 4 who were allotted the sites by the society sold the same in favour of the fifth respondent. Hence, respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed WP No.8917/2007 challenging the order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.588/1999, which was dismissed by order dated 28.1.2009. Being aggrieved, respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred WA No.629/2009 which was allowed and the order in WP No.8917/2007 and the order dated 12.1.2007 passed in Appeal No.588/1989 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The SLP filed by the petitioners against the judgment passed in WA No.629/2009 was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. Sri. Jagadish having expired on 31.1.2004, the petitioners being his wife and children have come on record as his legal representatives and have been prosecuting the proceedings.

6. Pursuant to the order passed in WA No.629/2009 the Tribunal heard the parties in Appeal No.588/1999 and by order dated 31.3.2015 dismissed the said Appeal. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

7. Sri. R.V.S.Naik, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the Tribunal erred in considering the