Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Sri Manoji John Thomas on 14 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
RFA No. 1216 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA.N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. MANOJI JOHN THOMAS
S/O LATE SRI. K.JOHN THOMAS,
AGED 53 YEARS,
#53 DACOSTA LAYOUT,
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
Digitally signed by
BENGALURU-560 084.
PREMCHANDRA M R REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
KARNATAKA SRI. RANJAN JOHN THOMAS,
S/O LATE SRI K.JOHN THOMAS,
AGED 50 YEARS,
#53 DACOSTA LAYOUT,
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
BENGALURU-560 084.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.LAXMINARAYANA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDPASHA., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
RFA No. 1216 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING-
INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Jagadeeshwara. N.R., counsel for the appellant, has
appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.V.Laxminarayana, Senior Counsel on behalf of
Sri.Chand Pasha, for the respondent, has appeared in person.
2. The captioned appeal is listed today for hearing -
interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1/2019 for condonation
of a delay of 365 days in filing the appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a
delay of 365 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an
application is filed in I.A.No.1/2019 seeking condonation of
delay. Dr.Sudha - The Addl. Land Acquisition Officer has sworn
to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to condone
the delay. He submits that the delay caused in filing the appeal
is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. If the delay
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
HC-KAR
is not condoned, the appellants will be put to hardship. Hence,
he submits that the delay of 365 days in filing the appeal may
be condoned.
By way of reply, Senior counsel Sri.V. Laxminarayana,
submits that the respondent has filed a statement of objections
to I.A.No.1/2019, the same may be taken note of. He
submitted that the Trial Court decreed the suit on 22.02.2018;
however, the appeal was filed on 04.06.2019; there is an
inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He argued by saying that
sufficient cause is not shown in explaining the delay; details are
not mentioned about the movement of files. Senior counsel
vehemently contended that the litigant must be diligent in
approaching the Court. To substantiate the contention, he
placed reliance on the decision in STATE OF BIHAR AND
OTHERS V/S. DEO KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in
(2022) 16 SCC 483. Senior counsel, therefore, submits that
the application may be rejected.
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the
respective parties on condonation of delay and perused the
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
HC-KAR
appeal papers, application, affidavit and also the statement of
objections filed by the respondent with utmost care.
5. The short point that requires consideration is
whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone
the delay in filing the appeal.
6. 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
"judicial generosity". Condonation of delay cannot be claimed
as of right.
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
HC-KAR
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 petitioner/ appellant 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 suit giving
rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff seeking the relief
of a declaration and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court
vide Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2018 decreed the suit.
There is a delay of 365 days in filing the appeal.
8. I have perused the application I.A.No.1/2019 and
also the affidavit. Dr. Sudha - The Addl. Land Acquisition
Officer, has sworn to a declaration of facts in the form of an
affidavit. In the affidavit, she has stated that immediately after
the receipt of the Judgment and Decree along with the
connected papers, the file was moved to obtain various sections
to receive their replies and to obtain permission for filing the
appeal. Since the file was moved from one section to another,
some considerable time has been consumed in filing the appeal.
If the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, untold
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
HC-KAR
hardship, irreparable loss, and injury will be caused to the
appellant, and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent,
and the appellant has a good case on the merits.
I am unable to accept the reasons accorded in the
affidavit. Except for saying that the file has moved from one
section to another, no satisfactory reasons are given for the
delay in filing the appeal.
A perusal of the appeal papers reflects that the appeal
was filed on 04.06.2019, and the office raised an objection on
26.06.2019. The appeal was listed before the Registrar Judicial
on 12.09.2019, and a week was granted to comply with the
office objections. The office objections were rectified on
20.09.2019. There is a delay in complying with the office
objections. Furthermore, the appellant has demonstrated a lack
of diligence in pursuing the listing of their case. Suffice it to
note that the Trial Court passed the Judgment & Decree on
22.02.2018. I may venture to say that the BDA is not, as such,
entitled to any special consideration under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. In other words, there is no discrimination in the
statute between the State, Authority and the subject. Time and
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
HC-KAR
again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that insofar as
condonation of delay is concerned, the Government/ Authority
stands on the same footing as a private litigant. Hence, no
mercy can be shown to the appellant, who is an Authority.
As already noted above, the Court has full discretion to
refuse an extension of time. 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.1/2019 is rejected.
9. Lastly, counsel for the appellant submits that short
accommodation may be granted to file a better affidavit. The
request is declined. The reason is simple. Whenever there is a
delay in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of
delay must accompany the memorandum of appeal. In the
present case, the application to condone the delay with the
affidavit, was filed along with the memorandum of appeal. The
Court must look into the reasons accorded in the affidavit that
NC: 2025:KHC:25669
HC-KAR
was filed in 2019. The appellant cannot improve the case by
filing a better affidavit as of today.
10. 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 First Appeal is dismissed.
Because of the dismissal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP
