Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P.SANDESH
THE TAHASILDAR – Appellant
Versus
SRI. RAMAIAH. A – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. This matter is listed for 'Orders' and earlier this Court vide order dated 24.06.2025, condoned delay of 142 days in filing this second appeal before this Court and heard the appeal for admission and adjourned for production of rejection order of the Committee for grant of land filed under Form No.50 and today, the matter was heard. Insofar as admission is concerned, there was a delay of 6,658 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court passed a detailed order and rejected IA filed under Order XLI Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
2. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration in O.S. No. 94 of 2003, it is pleaded that the plaintiff is in actual, physical, continuous, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of 2 acres of land in Survey No. 11 of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of suit property, openly, publicly to the knowledge of the defendants and their
The government must provide a substantial explanation for delays in legal actions, and mere claims of public interest do not justify excessive negligence or inaction.
Sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act; mere bureaucratic negligence is inadequate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law of limitation has to be applied with rigor, and a satisfactory explanation is required for condonation of delay.
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
Delay in filing a second appeal cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; administrative reasons and natural calamities must be substantiated with evidence.
Insufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act leads to dismissal of the appeal.
Point of law : Delay which has occurred at two (2) stages as noticed hereinabove, has not been explained and there is no cause muchless sufficient cause if shown.
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
