The appeal in commercial matters requires strict adherence to timelines under the Commercial Courts Act, and negligence in filing cannot justify delay beyond stipulated periods.

CAV JUDGMENT

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

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2021 passed in Com.O.S.No.6771/2018 by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-85- Commercial Court), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commercial Court').

2. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,51,381/- against the respondent with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till date of payment. 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 467 days in filing the appeal.

3. Sri.Goutham Chand S.F., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the director of the appellant-firm has filed an affidavit accompanying the application and the averments in the affidavit shows sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is submitted that one-Mr.K.Nagendra was given the Special Power of Attorney on behalf of the appellant-firm, who was handed over the copy of the impugned order, but he did not convey the dismissal of the said suit to the appellant due to which there was a delay in filing this appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant was unwell in the month of January 2021 due to breathing issues, he had to undergo heart surgery at Colombia Asia Hospital and that he also suffered from comorbidities. It is also submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits. The respondent is due to pay a substantial amount to the appellant 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.Dushyanth Aradhya H.C., learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has failed to show any 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay of over 467 days in filing the appeal. Hence, 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, 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 467 days in filing the appeal?"

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

a) Before considering the cause shown by the appellant seeking for condonation of delay of 467 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. and another vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 910 at paragraph Nos.20 & 21 held as under:

"20. xxxx

"19.xxxx

27. We shall next consider whether the delay of301 days in filing this Commercial Appeal can be condone in exercise of power conferred on this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 .

28. The extent of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to cases falling under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 fell forconsideration of the Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (2 supra).

29. The Supreme Court in Para 19 of it's judgment in Government of Maharashtra (2 supra) discussed the statement of objects and reasons behind enacting of the Commercial Cour