Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ., C.M. JOSHI, J.
The Executive Officer Sri Srikanteswara Swamy Temple Rastrapathi Road Nanjangud City Mysuru District - Appellant
Versus
Sri Manjunatheshwara Electricals, Licensed Electrical Contractors By Partners and Ors. – Respondents
Commercial Appeal No. 357 of 2025
Decided On : 28-08-2025
For the Appellant :Sri Harshith N. Balakrishna, Advocate.
The law of limitation applies to all parties equally, and bureaucratic delays alone do not justify the condonation of significant delays in legal appeals.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1-A) - Delay in filing appeal - Inordinate delay of 437 days - Court ruled that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay, particularly in commercial disputes - Condonation of delay dismissed due to lack of plausible explanation. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - The law of limitation binds all, including government bodies; bureaucratic delays are insufficient for condonation without adequate justification. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Executive Officer of the temple sought to appeal a judgment from a commercial suit. Delay was attributed to bureaucratic processes; however, specific dates and explanations were deemed insufficient by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized that 437 days delay in commercial appeal cannot be condoned without satisfactory cause.
Issues: Whether the substantial delay in filing the appeal could be justified or was acceptable under law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that habitual bureaucratic delays by government departments cannot be invoked to justify appeal delays unless a compelling reason is presented.
Result: The application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well.
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.
1. The appellant has filed the present commercial appeal impugning a judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Com.O.S. No.31/2020.
2. There is an inordinate delay of 437 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application seeking to explain the inordinate delay.
3. It is stated that, after the impugned judgment was pronounced, the appellant (Executive Officer of Sri Srikanteswara Temple, Nanjangud, Mysuru) had applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree and had shown the same to the Head Office at Bengaluru for seeking an approval for filing an appeal. The office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bengaluru had communicated the approval for filing the appeal by a letter dated 19.12.2024. It is stated that thereafter the appellant had contacted the counsel for collating the necessary papers and drafting the appeal and, therefore, there is a delay in filing of the appeal.
4. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit supporting the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are set out below:
"9. I state that since the documents were voluminous and there were several departments which had to ascertain whether an appeal was to be filed, there was a delay in obtaining the necessary sanctions from the department. I state that after obtaining the certified copies, the judgment and decree was shown to the head office at Bengaluru and the office of the Commissioner had given an approval for filing the appeal vide letter dated 19.12.2024. A copy of the letter addressed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments is produced herewith as Document No.1.
10. I state that subsequently I had contacted by counsel who had to collate all the necessary papers for the drafting of the appeal. I state that as stated above, during the said period of obtaining the necessary approvals, there was a delay in the filing of the appeal."
5. It is apparent from the above that the appellant has not provided any specific dates of events, which has resulted in delay in filing the appeal. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay after 19.12.2024. The present appeal was filed on 11.06.2025, which is almost six months after the appellant had reportedly obtained the approval for filing the appeal.
6. We find it relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited : (2012) 3 SCC 563.
"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable e
