[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt V Mala vs Sri Lakshmi Narasimha G N on 16 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
RP No. 429 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
REVIEW PETITION NO. 429 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. V.MALA,
W/O SHIVASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT 4TH WARD, DESHADA PETE,
DODDABALLAPUR - 561203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOHAR V., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA G.N.,
Digitally signed S/O LATE G.S.NARAYANA RAO,
by THEJAS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
KUMAR N R/AT NO.3, CAR STREET,
Location: HIGH DODDABALLAPURA-561203.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI M.NAGARAJU,
S/O MUNIBYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.11, MANCHAPANA HOSAHALLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 572129.
3. SRI P.S.RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO 1233, KUCHAPPANA PETE
DODDABALLAPURA - 561203.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
RP No. 429 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF
CPC READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908.
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Manohar V., counsel on behalf of Sri.Nagaraj S., for
the review petitioner, appeared in person.
2. The review petition is filed seeking a review the
order dated 07.07.2022 passed by this Court in MSA No.72 of
2019.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay
of 1,145 days in filing the petition. Accordingly, an application
is filed in I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
seeking condonation of the delay. Smt.V.Mala, the review
petitioner, has sworn to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency
of reason to condone the delay. Counsel submits that the delay
caused in filing the petition is neither wanton nor with any
malafide intention. Hence, he submits that the delay in filing
the petition may be condoned and the petition may be heard.
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
HC-KAR
4. Heard the contentions on the condonation of delay
and perused the papers, application and affidavit with utmost
care.
5. This review petition presents a compelling case, as
it is primarily predicated upon a judicial obiter dictum.
6. Let me see whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to condone the delay in filing the petition. Before I
answer the point, 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
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
HC-KAR
fanciful manner. Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of
"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/petition 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
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
HC-KAR
advance substantial justice. What is sufficient cause cannot be
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.
7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the review
petitioner was the first respondent in the appeal, and she was
duly represented by counsel. Taking note of the contentions
urged on behalf of the respective parties, this court disposed of
the appeal on the Seventh day of July, 2022, and the review
petition was filed on the 24th day of September, 2025. There is
a delay of 1145 days in filing the petition. Accordingly, an
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed in
I.A.No.1/2025 to condone the delay.
8. Perused the application and also the affidavit with
care. Smt.V.Mala, the petitioner, has sworn to a declaration of
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
HC-KAR
facts in the form of an affidavit. It is submitted by the
Petitioner, as stated in her affidavit, that a writ petition was
filed, and the Court, while hearing the same, voiced an opinion
that the order passed in the appeal be reviewed. The
petitioner's reliance on the observation made in the 2023 writ
petition to justify the delay in the review petition is legally
unsustainable, as the period of limitation for filing a review
commences from the date of the order sought to be reviewed,
not from any subsequent judicial comment or expression.
9. The petitioner cannot seek a review of an order
based solely on an expression or a remark made by a judge.
An obiter dictum of the Court does not constitute a binding
precedent and thus cannot form a valid ground for review of
the final order. I may venture to say that the expression made
by the Judge in the 2023 writ petition does not extend or
revalidate the statutory period of limitation for filing the
present review application, which is clearly time-barred. The
assertion of the petitioner in seeking to explain the delay by
referring to the 2023 judicial expression is without basis, as the
principles governing condonation of delay require a showing
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
HC-KAR
of bona fide reasons that prevented the petitioner from filing
within the prescribed time, not a reinterpretation of a prior,
separate judicial comment.
10. The petitioner has not made any grounds to
condone the delay. Furthermore, the Court has full discretion to
refuse an extension of time. Furthermore, 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 litigation, 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 allowed by the
courts to misuse the process of law. The reasons provided in
the affidavit and the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner regarding the delay in filing the review petition
cannot be accepted; hence, this Court exercises its
discretionary power and refuses an extension of time.
NC: 2025:KHC:53455
HC-KAR
11. I decline to condone the delay. Accordingly,
I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Resultantly, the review petition is
also rejected.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
.
