IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Karigowda, S/o. Late Bullanna – Appellant
Versus
Chikkanna, S/o. Late Kariyappa – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed by petitioner/defendant No.2 seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, in O.S.No.155/2018 dated 24.03.2025 on I.A.No.1.
3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant No.2, for the sake of brevity.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his legitimate share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to declare the registered sale deeds dated 22.05.2013 and 29.09.2014 to be null and void and not binding and for other consequential reliefs.
5. Defendant No.2 filed an application requesting the Court to permit him to file written statement by condoning the delay of six years. The said application filed by defendant No.2 upon contest came to be rejected by the trial Court by imposing a cost of Rs.500/-. It is this order that is questioned by the learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.2.
6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for defendant No.2 that the impugned order passed by th
The law regarding the condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation, and negligence or lack of diligence renders an application for delay condonation unjustifiable.
In partition suits between elderly step-brothers, 58-day delay in written statement condoned as exceptional case warranting defendant's pleadings for fair trial, avoiding defective decrees and prolon....
The Court emphasized that mere allegations against counsel do not suffice as adequate explanation for a lengthy delay in filing appeals; adherence to statute of limitations is critical.
The court has discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the written statement, subject to a stricter yardstick for non-commercial suits, and the defendant should be given an opportunity to e....
A trial court's rejection of a delay application must be supported by cogent reasoning, and courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach, granting opportunities to parties to substantiate their clai....
The court held that the appellants' explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and that they were aware of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, as evidenced ....
Court reiterated the need for sufficient cause in condoning delay, emphasizing that inordinate delays without justifiable reasons will not be entertained.
Negligence in pursuing legal rights disqualifies parties from condoning lengthy delays in appeals, proving insufficient cause under procedural law.
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing joint family property and the need to satisfactorily explain inordinate delay in filing an appeal, as per Sec. 96 of CPC and Sec. 51 of the Limitat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.