Karnataka High Court
G H Haleshi vs T Eshwaranaik on 13 October, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
RSA No. 771 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2020 (MON)
BETWEEN:
G.H.HALESHI,
S/O GAALI HALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O KUMBALURU VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHINMAY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.R.GOPAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
T.ESHWARANAIK,
Digitally signed by S/O TUKYA NAIK,
THEJAS KUMAR N AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Location: HIGH AGRICULTURIST,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O KUMBALURU VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECITON 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
RSA No. 771 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS
DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Chinmay., counsel on behalf of Sri.R.Gopal., for the appellant has appeared in person.
Notice to the respondent was ordered on 01.07.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.
2. The captioned appeal is listed today for Hearing - interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1/2020 for condonation of a delay of 566 days in filing the appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 566 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2020 seeking condonation of delay. Sri.G.H.Haleshi - the appellant has sworn to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to condone the delay. Counsel submits that the delay caused in filing the appeal is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. If the delay is -3- NC: 2025:KHC:40319 RSA No. 771 of 2020 HC-KAR not condoned, the appellant will be put to hardship. Hence, he submits that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant on condonation of delay and perused the appeal papers, application and the affidavit with utmost care.
5. Let me see whether the appellant has made out grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 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 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40319 RSA No. 771 of 2020 HC-KAR "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 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40319 RSA No. 771 of 2020 HC-KAR described with certainty because the 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 facts. But it must not be lost sight of that the appellant /petitioner will have to prove that he was diligent. Further, he will have to explain the day- to-day delay from the last day of limitation.
6. Reverting to the facts of the case, the suit giving rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of money. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2016 partly decreed the suit. As against the same, the defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2018 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the captioned second appeal. There is a delay of 566 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2020 to condone the delay.
Perused the application and also the affidavit with care. G.H.Haleshi - the appellant has sworn to a declaration of facts -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40319 RSA No. 771 of 2020 HC-KAR in the form of an affidavit. In the affidavit, he has stated that after the decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed Execution Case No.06/2017 for recovery of the decreetal amount and he entered appearance and filed his objection stating that the execution petition may be dismissed as appeal in R.A.No.19/2017 was filed and the same was pending consideration. It is also stated that there was a communication gap between him and previous counsel and hence, he was not aware of the disposal of the appeal till arrest warrant was sought to be executed in 2019. It is stated that he applied for the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree and engaged another advocate to contest the execution petition. He has also stated that the financial condition was not good and there was a short of funds to file a second appeal.
I am unable to accept the reasons accorded in the affidavit. The suit was filed for recovery of money. As the suit was decreed, the appellant should have been more diligent. In my view, no grounds are made out by the appellant to condone delay in filing the appeal. As already noted above, the Court has full discretion to refuse an extension of time. Furthermore, -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40319 RSA No. 771 of 2020 HC-KAR the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS VS. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & OTHERS - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11794 OF 2025 disposed of on 12.09.2025, has held that the constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favorable orders are frustrated at later stages. The Apex Court has also held that no litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.
The reasons accorded in the affidavit and the submission made on behalf of the appellant regarding the delay in filing the appeal are not satisfactory, and hence, this Court exercises the discretionary power and refuses an extension of time. I decline to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 is rejected.
7. This Court has rejected the application to condone the delay, hence, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is rejected. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:40319 RSA No. 771 of 2020 HC-KAR Because of rejection of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.
SD/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE KMV,TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30