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
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
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
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
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
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
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
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
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,
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:40319
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
