US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G.BASAVARAJA
Vithal S/o Revappa Rebannavar – Appellant
Versus
Dadappa S/o Mahadeva Chikkodi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
1. The appellant, who is defendant before the trial Court, has preferred this second appeal against the order dated 30th January, 2009 passed in Misc. No.30 of 2004, by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak on the Application filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT (for short “the first appellate Court”).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the first appellate Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed Suit for declaration and injunction in respect of suit schedule property on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by one Smt. Satyavva w/o Ramanna Babanna Baddi. Though defendant has appeared before the trial Court through his Counsel, but has not filed written statement. After recording the evidence of PW1 and 2 and production of 28 docume
A party must provide substantial and convincing evidence to support a claim for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
For a delay to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant must establish sufficient cause, independent of case merits, and allegations of fraud require substantial proof.
The court reiterated that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal lies with the appellant, and mere ignorance or reliance on counsel is insufficient.
The court reinforced that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and ignorance of a judgment is insufficient for condonation.
The court ruled that mere negligence and lack of diligence do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act.
The law of limitation must be applied rigidly, and a significant delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned without adequate and credible justification.
The delay in filing an appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction by the appellant. The expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5....
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
Listen Article