Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.MANMADHA RAO, J.
State Of Karnataka By Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha – Appellant
Versus
Manjunatha S.K., S/o. Sheshagiriyappa, – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.1802 Of 2017 & Order On I.A.No.1 Of 2019 & 1 Of 2025
Decided On : 19-12-2025
For the Appellant : Sri. Santhosh S. Gogi, Aag, A/W, Sri Jayalingaiah, Aga.
For the Respondent: Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv.
The courts reiterated that administrative delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning delays in legal proceedings, emphasizing equal treatment under the law for all litigants.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - The appeal filed by the state was dismissed due to an inordinate delay of 1227 days without sufficient cause - Administrative lapses and Covid-19 disruptions were deemed insufficient grounds for condoning delay - Courts cannot overlook limitation statutes for state litigants, reflecting the principle that all litigants are held to the same standards of diligence. (Paras 30-32)
(B) Legal principles - The High Court reaffirmed that administrative delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause for condoning delay in appeals and the fundamental nature of limitations should be respected equally for the State and private litigants. (Paras 25-30)
Facts of the case:
The state filed an appeal against the decree awarding ownership to respondents after an extensive delay, citing various administrative reasons, which the court found insufficient.
Findings of Court:
The court found no proper justification for the delay and set aside the previous order condoning the delay, stating the appeal was barred by limitation.
Issues: The issues included whether administrative lapses constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the applicability of limitation provisions to the state.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the law of limitation applies to all equally; administrative laziness cannot be excused, and the courts must not condone delays that do not meet the established legal standards.
Result: The appeal was dismissed due to the inordinate delay.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions on condonation of delay and prior judgment citations. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. appellants argue procedural lapses and delays in previous proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. arguments against the recall application for condonation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. appellants file for condonation of delay in payment of costs. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. court's approach to delay and procedural adherence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. court rules against unnecessary delay and reiterates statute adherence. (Para 29 , 30 , 32) |
| 8. final order dismissing the appeal due to inordinate delay. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
K.MANMADHA RAO, J.
1. The present appeal is filed appellants-State, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014 in R.A.No.273/2010 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track, Sagar (herein after referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’ for short) and judgment and decree dated 21.08.2010 in O.S.No.169/2000 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sagar (‘the trial Court’ for short)
2. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before this Court.
3. I.A.No.1/2019 is filed by the respondents with the accompanying affidavit to recall the order dated 24.06.2019 passed in I.A.No.1/2017 for condonation of delay.
IA No.1/2019
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
4. Sri Vasanth @ V.S. Hegde, aged about 50 years, son of Shesharigiyappa, resident of Kanuthota, Arehada Village, Talaguppa Hobli, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District, presently at Bangalore, deposes as follows:
5. Sri Vasanth @ V.S. Hegde is the respondent No.2 in the matter and is fully conversant with the facts of the case. He affirms this affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the respondent No.1, being duly authorized.
6. The matter came up for consideration of I.A.No.1/2017 for condonation of delay on 24.06.2019. This Court heard the appellants and respondents and passed a conditional order condoning the delay of 1227 days in filing the appeal. During the hearing, the learned Government Advocate sought time to file a better affidavit. This Court observed that the issue of condonation of delay had been considered by the Apex Court in Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority v. S.S. Sarvesh reported in (2019) 5 SCC 144 , relying on the Larger Bench decision in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah & Another reported in AIR 1995 SC 425 emphasizing that Courts must do substantial justice and that dismissal on merits is preferred over dismissal by default. Further, submitted that the judgment cited by the respondents, in the case of Chief Post Master General & Ors v. Living Media India Ltd. & Another reported in AIR 2012 SC 1606, was not considered by the Court at that stage.
7. Subsequently, after obtaining copies of the judgments referred by this Court, the respondents noted that the judgments cited by the Court had not based on limitation or condonation of delay and were therefore inapplicable. Conversely, the decision in Chief Post Master General and others case supra, was directly relevant. Further, I.A.No.1/2017 was decided solely based on the judgments cited by this Court, without considering objections filed by the respondents, including that all appellants were parties to O.S.169/2010 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sagar, (‘the trial Court’ for short) and R.A.273/2010 before the Fast Track Court, Sagar (‘the first appellate Court’ for short). The first appellate Court, after considering evidence and documents, decreed the respondents as owners in possession by judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014. The appellants did not prefer an appeal within the statutory period.
8. It is further deposed that in W.P.No.51880/2016, this Court directed the appellants to effect revenue entries pursuant to the decree dated 27.01.2014 within two months from 15.11.2016. No action was taken, necessitating contempt petitions CCC (Civ
