Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Mrs. Suveen K. Reddy Vuppala, S/o. Mr. Satyanarayana Vuppala – Petitioner
Versus
M/S Metrocorp, Represented By Its Partner Mr. Deepak Krishnappa – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.380 of 2018(IO)
Decided On : 11-11-2025
For the Petitioner:Sri. Anagha Narasimha C.N. for Sri Ajit P.B., Advocates
For the Respondent:Sri T. Prakash, Advocate.
A delay of 152 days in filing a revision petition was not properly explained, leading to dismissal of the application to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay in filing - Application to condone delay of 152 days in filing revision petition denied as reasons given were insufficient and not adequately explained - The court emphasized the importance of timely legal proceedings and noted the prolonged delay from 2014 to 2025 without resolution. (Paras 2, 12, 13)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - Matter referred to arbitration - The court upheld the trial court's decision to refer the parties to arbitration based on the agreement's arbitration clause, despite the plaintiff's opposition. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the trial court's order referring the dispute to arbitration, following a suit related to property where the petitioner raised objections against the order citing delays in obtaining certified copies.
Findings of Court:
The delay was deemed unexplained under the Limitation Act, leading to the dismissal of both the condonation application and the revision petition.
Issues: The main issues were whether sufficient reasons were presented to condone the delay and the validity of referring the matter for arbitration based on the contractual agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient and emphasized the duty to act timely in legal matters, underlining the court's discretion in exercising its powers under the Limitation Act.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Anagha Narasimha C.N., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ajit P.B., counsel for the petitioners on I.A.No.1/2019. None appears for the respondents.
2. There is delay of 152 days in filing the present revision petition. Therefore, application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay period.
3. Application is supported by affidavit of the revision petitioner. Relevant paragraph in the affidavit at paragraph 14 which reads as under:
“14. I submit that after the date of the impugned order dated 23rd August 2017, I have requested my counsel to apply immediately for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order on 29/08/2017 and the copies of the order was ready only on 12.12.2017. After collecting the copy of the impugned order, as due to business work and as I am residing in USA. I was unable to contact my counsel on time to provide necessary instructions in order to file this current petition impugning the order dated 23th August 2017 in time. Therefore, as a result, there was a delay of around 50 days in providing vakalath and verifying affidavit required in order to file this current petition impugning the Order dated 23th August 2017, passed by the Trial Court. Due to the aforesaid reasons, there was further delay in filing of this petition.”
4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
4.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.576/2014 by the revision petitioners with the following prayer in respect of following properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.)
“WHEREFORE the Plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree: (i) Declaring the Deed of Mortgage dated February 11, 2008 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.14 as null and void:
(ii) Directing the Defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the Schedule B Property as also defined under the Agreement to Sell;
(iii) Of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their assignees, their legal representatives, their successors in interest from encumbering, alienating or creating any charge over the Schedule B property, and (iv) grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and aforementioned circumstances.”
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY
(DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PROPERTY)
ITEM No.1: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY OF SRI MUNIANJINAPPA
1. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.94, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 26 guntas and bounded on the:
East by: Sy. No.93
West by: Remaining portion of Sy. No.94
North by: Sy. No.96
South by: Sy. No. 86
II. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy.No.96, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 23 guntas and bounded on the:
East by : Sy. No.91
West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.96
North by: Sy. Nos. 97, 98, 90
South by: Sy. Nos.95, 94, 92
III. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.98, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 7 acres 33 guntas and bounded on the:
East by : Sy. No.99
West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.98
North by: Village boundary of Choudanahalli
South by: Sy.No.96
Totally measuring an extent of 21 Acres 02 guntas
ITEM No.2: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY OF SRI M.H. NAGARAJ
1. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.94, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli. Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 2 acres 15 guntas and bounded on the:
East by: Remaining portion of Sy No.94
West by: Sy No. 95
North by:Sy No. 96
South by:Sy. Nos. 86
II. Portion of immovable pr
