Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20690
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI, J
THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
SRI. MANOJI JOHN THOMAS – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI. JAGADEESWARA.N.R., ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:SRI. V.LAXMINARAYANA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA., ADVOCATE
The court emphasized the necessity of proving sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ensuring judicial discretion is exercised with diligence.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 365 days in filing appeal - The appellant sought condonation of delay citing insufficient reasons for substantial time lost in moving files - Court refused to condone delay due to lack of diligence - Clear that time extensions under the statute do not favor government bodies over private litigants (Paras 5, 6, 8).
(B) Condonation of Delay - The court underscored that the proof of 'sufficient cause' is necessary for seeking judicial discretion, and petitioners must demonstrate due diligence in filing appeals (Paras 6, 8).
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to appeal against Trial Court's decree from 22.02.2018, yet filed late, leading to arguments surrounding sufficient cause for delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found the reasons provided for delay unsatisfactory, demonstrating a lack of diligence by the appellant.
Issues: Central issue was whether sufficient cause for delaying appeal was shown; court affirmed that timely filing is imperative.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden lies upon the appellant to prove diligence in pursuing the remedy and that mere lack of prejudicial impact on the respondent does not warrant favorable discretion.
Result: Condonation of delay application rejected; appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments on the necessity for condonation of 365-day delay in filing appeal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court’s discretion based on sufficient cause for delay. (Para 5) |
| 3. facts leading to the filing of the appeal and reasons for delay. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final decision on the appeal's dismissal. (Para 9 , 10) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA.N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. MANOJI JOHN THOMAS S/O LATE SRI. K.JOHN THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, #53 DACOSTA LAYOUT, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560 084.
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R REPRESENTED BY Location: HIG H GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI. RANJAN JOHN THOMAS, S/O LATE SRI K.JOHN THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, #53 DACOSTA LAYOUT, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560 084.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.LAXMINARAYANA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING-
INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Jagadeeshwara. N.R., counsel for the appellant, has appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.V.Laxminarayana, Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.Chand Pasha, for the respondent, has appeared in person.
2. The captioned appeal is listed today for hearing -
interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1/2019 for condonation of a delay of 365 days in filing the appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 365 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2019 seeking condonation of delay. Dr.Sudha – The Addl. Land Acquisition Officer has sworn to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to condone the delay. He submits that the delay caused in filing the appeal is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. If the delay is not condoned, the appellants will be put to hardship. Hence, he submits that the delay of 365 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
By way of reply, Senior counsel Sri.V. Laxminarayana, submits that the respondent has filed a statement of objections to I.A.No.1/2019, the same may be taken note of. He submitted that the Trial Court decreed the suit on 22.02.2018; however, the appeal was filed on 04.06.2019; there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He argued by saying that sufficient cause is not shown in explaining the delay; details are not mentioned about the movement of files. Senior counsel vehemently contended that the litigant must be diligent in approaching the Court. To substantiate the contention, he placed reliance on the decision in STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS V/S. DEO KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 16 SCC 483. Senior counsel, therefore, submits that the application may be rejected.
4. 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.
5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
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 sens
