Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.MANMADHA RAO
State Of Karnataka By Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha – Appellant
Versus
Manjunatha S.K., S/o. Sheshagiriyappa – Respondent
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.
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.
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires substantial justification, and the State is treated no differently than private litigants in these matters.
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
Government litigation must adhere to the same standards for condonation of delay as private parties, with negligence and casual inaction being inadequate justifications.
The court emphasized the accountability of State-Authorities for inaction and held that the impersonal machinery of the government cannot be used as a ground for condonation of delay.
The State must provide satisfactory reasons for delay in filing petitions; bureaucratic inefficiency is no excuse. Condonation of delay should not undermine the principles of timely justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments, and there is a need for diligence and commitment....
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
