Sri.K.R.Lingaraju., learned counsel for the appellant and

Sri.Santosh.B.M.,

learned

counsel

for

respondent

have

appeared in person.

2.

The captioned appeal is listed today for admission

along with an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.1/2017 for

condonation of a delay of 203 days in filing the appeal.

3.

Sri.K.R.Lingaraju., learned counsel for the appellant

submits that there is a delay of 203 days in filing the second

appeal. Sri.S.B.Anil Kumar - the appellant has sworn to an

affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to condone the

delay. Learned counsel submits that the delay caused in filing

the appeal is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. If

the delay is not condoned, the appellant will be put to hardship.

Hence, he submits that the delay of 203 days in filing the

appeal may be condoned.

4.

Sri.Santosh.B.M., learned counsel for respondent

submits that he has filed statement of objections to

I.A.No.1/2017, the same may be taken note of and appropriate

order may be passed.

- 3 -

5.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the

respective parties on condonation of delay and perused the

appeal papers, application, affidavit and also the statement of

objections filed by the respondent with utmost care.

6.

Let us quickly glance through the law of limitation.

The principle enunciated under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act is that a Court is vested with judicial discretion to admit an

appeal, or an application filed after the expiry of the period of

limitation on sufficient cause being shown for the delay.

It must be remembered that the Court has full discretion

to refuse an extension of time, but this discretion, like other

judicial discretions, must be exercised with vigilance and

circumspection according to justice, common sense, and sound

judgment. It must not be exercised in an arbitrary, vague, and

fanciful manner. Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of

“judicial generosity”. Condonation of delay cannot be claimed

as of right.

Having regard to the words “may be admitted “in Section

5, the Court has discretion, even where sufficient cause is

shown, in not admitting an appeal filed after time, on the

- 4 -

ground that the extension of time under that Section is a

matter of concession or indulgence to the appellant/petitioner

who has come late and cannot be claimed as of right.

The proof of "sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for

the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the

Court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the

sufficiency of the cause.

The Court should not come to the aid of a party where

there has been an unwarrantable delay in seeking the statutory

remedy. Any remedy must be sought with reasonable

promptitude having regard to the circumstances.

No doubt there are authorities to say that the words

"sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction to

advance substantial justice. What is sufficient cause cannot be

described with certainty because facts on which questions may

arise may not be identical. What may be sufficient cause in one

case may be otherwise in another. Hence the whole thing

should be decided with reference to the circumstances of each

case. Each case must be decided on its own facts. But it must

not be lost of sight that the petitioner/ appellant will have to

- 5 -

prove that he was diligent. Further, he will have to explain day-

to-day delay from the last day of limitation.

7.

Reverting to the facts of the case, the suit giving

rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff seeking the relief

of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit is filed on the

file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna in

O.S.No.99/2009. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree

dated:28.01.2015 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the

Judgment & Decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an

appeal in R.A.No.20/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Channarayapatna. On appeal, the First Appellate Court vide

Judgment & D