Karnataka High Court
Madaiah vs S. Basavaraju on 25 October, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
RSA No. 189 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. MADAIAH,
S/O. LATE POOJARI BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
2. S.SHIVANNA,
S/O. MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: HIGH S.BASAVARAJU,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O. POOJARI SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.NATARAJU., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
RSA No. 189 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, A JUDGMENT IS
DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Rudrappa.P., counsel for the appellants and
Sri.P.Nataraju., counsel for the respondent have appeared 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 893 days in filing the appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that there is a
delay of 893 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an
application is filed in I.A.No.1/2020 seeking condonation of
delay. Sri.Madaiah - appellant No.1 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. Hence, he
submits that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
HC-KAR
Counsel Sri.P.Nataraju., for the respondents submits that
detailed statement of objections is filed to I.A.No.1/2020 and
the same may be taken note of and the application may be
dismissed. Counsel on instructions further submits that decree
has already been executed. Counsel, therefore, submits that
the appeal may be dismissed.
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the
respective parties on condonation of delay and perused the
appeal papers, application, affidavit and the statement of
objections with utmost care.
5. Let me see whether the appellants have 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
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
HC-KAR
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.
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
HC-KAR
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
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 permanent injunction. The Trial Court vide Judgment and
Decree dated 05.04.2013 decreed the suit. As against the
same, the defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate
Court. The First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree
dated 21.02.2017 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the
same, the defendants have filed the captioned second appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
HC-KAR
There is a delay of 893 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.
Madaiah - appellant No.1 has sworn to a declaration of facts in
the form of an affidavit. In the affidavit, he has stated that he
was suffering from health problems; High B.P. Hyper tension
and etc., and his son appellant No.2 was taking care of him. He
also stated that he was suffering from jaundice and was taking
Ayurvedic treatment from 28.09.2018 to 13.10.2019. Hence,
they could not file the appeal immediately. The reasons
accorded in the affidavit cannot be accepted. Except stating
that appellant No.1 was suffering from ailments, no medical
documents are furnished to substantiate the said contention.
The suit was filed for permanent injunction. As the suit was
decreed, the appellants should have been more diligent. The
First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 21.02.2017. The
appellants ought to have filed the appeal within three months.
In my view, the appellants have not made any grounds to
condone the delay. As already noted above, the Court has full
discretion to refuse an extension of time.
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
HC-KAR
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 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 appellants regarding the delay in filing
the appeal are not satisfactory, and hence, this Court exercises
the discretionary power and refuses an extension of time.
Moreover, counsel for the respondent submits that the decree
has already been executed. Hence, I decline to condone the
delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed.
7. This Court has dismissed the application to condone
the delay, hence, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of
the case. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:42197
HC-KAR
Because of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory
applications, if any, are disposed of and interim direction if any
stands discharged.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP,KMV
