Karnataka High Court
The Chief Secretary vs Smt Ammini Eapen on 6 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44821
RSA No. 759 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.759 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU REVENUE DISTRICT,
D.C.OFFICE COMPLEX,
MYSURU-570 005.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SMT. AMMINI EAPEN,
Location: HIGH W/O LATE MAJOR EAPEN,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/O MANIVEL FARM,
BILIKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
HUNSUR TALUK-571105.
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER,
SRI. K.D.KARIAPPA,
S/O K.M.DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O NO.685, 12TH MAIN, C-BLOCK,
VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE,
MYSURU - 570005.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44821
RSA No. 759 of 2021
HC-KAR
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE,
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD,
MYSURU-571105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2017
PASSED IN R.A.NO.655/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.204/2004
ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the
caveator/respondent No.1.
2. There is a delay of 846 days in filing the appeal. In
support of I.A.No.1/2021 filed to condone the delay, an
affidavit is sworn. Having perused the affidavit, it is not the
case of the State that they were not having the knowledge
about the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court
allowing the appeal vide order dated 31.08.2017. It is not in
NC: 2025:KHC:44821
HC-KAR
dispute that immediately after the disposal of the appeal,
certified copy was also taken and papers were sent to the
Government. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, it is stated
that all the papers including the certified copy were sent to the
Government to take a decision in the matter and the
Government also taken the decision. But affidavit is silent
about on what date papers were sent to the Government. It is
sworn to in the affidavit that the Government has taken
decision to file an appeal against the judgment and decree
passed in Regular Appeal and Government also issued the G.O.
on 04.05.2018 and papers were sent to the Advocate General
Office, which were received in the Office of Advocate General
on 08.05.2018. Thereafter, the Office of the Advocate General
has written letter to the Government requesting to furnish the
certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the Court
below along with the relevant papers. Again no details are
furnished on what date Advocate General Office corresponded
with the Government. It is stated that thereafter, they applied
for the certified copy of the judgment and the order passed by
the Court below, depositions, exhibits etc. and obtained the
same on the same day and immediately rushed to the Office of
NC: 2025:KHC:44821
HC-KAR
the Advocate General to instruct in the matter to prefer the
present appeal. Immediately, he contacted the concerned
Government Advocate and instructed in the matter to prefer
the present second appeal. Nowhere it is stated on what date
certified copies were taken and entrusted the papers and even
though it is stated that on the very same day and on what date
all these documents are furnished to the Advocate General
office also affidavit is silent. It is stated that in view of the
COVID-19, the delay was caused.
3. The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent
No.1 orally opposes I.A.No.1/2021 that the delay has not been
properly explained and each day delay has to be explained.
4. Having considered the affidavit filed in support of
I.A.No.1/2021, first of all, no details are furnished as to on
what date papers are submitted to the Government. Even
though the Government has issued the G.O. on 04.05.2018,
present appeal is filed in 2021. Before Covid-19 period also,
for a period of 2 years from 04.05.2018 to 2020 March, no
progress at all and no reasons are given for the delay and only
given the reasons with regard to correspondence with the
NC: 2025:KHC:44821
HC-KAR
Advocate General Office. The material discloses that on
08.05.2018, within 4 days of Government G.O., papers were
sent to the Advocate General Office and it appears that there is
a negligence on the part of the Office of the Advocate General
in filing the appeal and for the lapses on the part of the
Advocate General Office as well as the officials in filing the
appeal, if any loss is caused to the State exchequer, the same
has to be recovered in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of POSTMASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS v.
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in
(2012) 3 SCC 563.
5. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged in the application, no sufficient reasons are made out to
condone the delay from 2017 to 2021. The reason assigned is
not sufficient cause and hence on the ground of delay, when
the appellant has not furnished the sufficient cause, the Apex
Court in catena of judgments has held that whether the
appellant is a Government or a private party, there cannot be
two yardsticks and the Court has to expect diligence in the
matter. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of
NC: 2025:KHC:44821
HC-KAR
SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS., v. KARNATAKA HOUSING
BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969
held that the matter cannot be considered on merits in view of
the discussions made in paragraph Nos.140 to 142 of the
judgment. No proper and sufficient cause and reasons are
made out to condone the delay of 846 days in filing the appeal
and hence I.A.No.1/2021 is dismissed and consequently the
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
