The court held that when considering an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the merits of the case must not be examined, and a liberal approach should be adopted, particularly when the original order was passed ex parte.

WRIT PETITION NO. 109718 OF 2025 (CS-RES)

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

Date: 2026.04.28

14:53:12 +0530

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,

(I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL BEARING NO.54/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE - A, & (II) CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2018, PASSED IN CASE BEARING NO.AR-15/ABN/DDS/07/2018-19, BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DHARWAD/RESPONDENT NO.4, VIDE ANNEXURE - C AS BAD IN LAW,

AND/OR & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Cop.Appeal No.54 of 2023 vide Annexure-A, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The petitioner has also sought to declare the order dated 20.06.2018 passed in Case No.AR-15/ABN/DDS-07/2018-19 by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharwad i.e. respondent No.4 vide Annexure-C, as bad in law.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

3. Upon receipt of the entire sale consideration of ₹21,113.30/- and betterment/development charges of ₹19,025.60/- from the petitioner, respondent No.5-Scoeity executed a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioner regarding Plot/Site No.21 in R.S.Nos.554A+559A+560 situated at Hubballi. Pursuant thereto, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records.

4. On 20.06.2018, upon enquiry made by the petitioner, it was learnt that without notifying the petitioner, the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, the ARCS had passed an order in Case No.AR-15/ABN/DDS/07/2018-19 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the Act, 1959, allowing the petition filed by the respondent No.5-Society.

5. Pursuant to the said order dated 20.06.2018, the registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 14.12.1993 came to be cancelled, and thereafter, respondent No.5-Sciety is stated to have sold the property in favour of respondent No.7.

6. The original allottee, being aggrieved by the order passed by the ARCS, preferred an appeal in Cop.Appeal No.54 of 3 2023 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru . The Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru by its judgment dated 17.12.2024, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed in Cop.Appeal No.54 of 2023, has filed this writ petition.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3 the Appellate Tribunal

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the appellant has not shown a sufficient cause for preferring an appeal. He also submits that when the Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioners had not shown a sufficient cause for condoning the delay, it ought not to have proceeded to consider the appeal on merits. However, the Appellate