CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2022 passed in Com.O.S.No.257/2021 by the LXXXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court).

2. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,67,111.75/- against the respondents with interest at the rate of 2% p.m. from 30.10.2020 till realization of the amount with costs. The said suit, after contest, came to be dismissed with cost. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed along with an application I.A.No.1/2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 354 days in filing the appeal.

3. Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed an affidavit accompanying the application and also an additional affidavit on 11.07.2025, the averments in the affidavit shows sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant could not proceed to file the appeal within the limitation period and after obtaining the copies, he approached the counsel and thereafter the appeal was filed. It is further submitted that the appellant had some financial difficulties to pay the Court fee as there was a business loss due to the covid pandemic. It is also submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits and the respondents are due a substantial amount and to recover the said amount, a substantive right is available to the appellant and by considering the same he seeks to condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits.

4. Sri.Prakash B.N., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that a false additional affidavit is filed by the appellant stating that there is a loss in the business resulting in difficulty to pay the Court fees and another reason assigned is Covid-19 pandemic, which is also far away from truth. It is submitted that the suit came to be dismissed in the month of April 2022 and at that time all the Courts were functioning and there was no pandemic effect as claimed by the appellant. It is further submitted that the delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner in the commercial appeals and the discretion to condone the delay should be exercised sparingly and only in the cases, where sufficient cause is shown, and in the instant case, no such cause is shown to condone the enormous delay. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jharkand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and another vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 910 and in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 460. He seeks to reject the application filed for condonation of delay and consequently reject the appeal.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, perused the material available on record and have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced, judgments relied and the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is "Whether the appellant has shown "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 354 days in filing the appeal?"

6. The answer to the above point is negative for the following reasons.

7. Before considering the cause shown by the appellant seeking for condonation of delay of 354 days, it would be useful to refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. In the case of Jharkand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd referred supra at para 20 & 21 held as under:

"20. The High Court, thereafter, proceeded to answer the aforesaid question as under:

“19. In order to answer this question, we cannot lose sight of the whole purpose of enactment of th