Karnataka High Court
The Deputy Commissioner vs Smt. Obalamma on 30 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
RSA No. 201 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.201 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU-570 001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU-570 001.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. OBALAMMA
W/O. LATE OBALAIAH @ OBALESH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SMT. THIRUPALAMMA
D/O. LATE OBALAIAH @ OBALESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. SRI. BABU
S/O. LATE OBALAIAH @ OBALESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
RSA No. 201 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. SRI. GANGARAJU
S/O. LATE OBALAIAH @ OBALESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
6. SRI. LINGARAJU
S/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
7. SMT. GANGESHWARI
D/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
8. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
9. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
10. SRI.RAVI
S/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
11. SMT. LATHA
D/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
12. SMT. PADMA
D/O. LATE KULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O. LATE OBALAIAH
D/O. LATE PAKEERGOD
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
RSA No. 201 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. SRI. NAGESH
S/O. LATE GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
14. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
15. SRI. MUTHANNA
S/O. LATE GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
16. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
17. SMT. NAGAMMA
D/O. LATE GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
18. SRI. MURTHY
S/O. LATE GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
19. SRI. KRISHNA
S/O. LATE GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 19 ARE
R/AT THAVARE KATTE
CHAMUNDI HILLS ROAD
KASABA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK.
20. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU
REP. BYITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
RSA No. 201 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.2021
PASSED IN R.A.NO.346/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU
REJECTING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING WITH
MODIFICATION THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
28.05.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.936/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A.No.1/2025 and there is delay of 984 days in
filing the appeal.
2. This second appeal is filed with the delay of 984
days. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to
narrating in paragraph No.2 that they are aware of the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court which
was dismissed on 15.07.2021 in R.A.No.346/2020 on the file of
IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru. It is also stated
that there was correspondence in regard to filing of the above
appeal at various stage of the Department. The Officers
engaged in searching the original file in record room regarding
the grant of land to Smt.Obalamma were engaged in Election
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
HC-KAR
duty of Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha. The
Deputy Commissioner in letter dated 13.05.2024 taken action
to file appeal by defendant No.2. There was a meeting on
23.12.2024 with the legal advisor under the Chairmanship of
the Deputy Commissioner and it was resolved to file appeal in
the year 2022. Inspite of it, the records are not submitted to
the concerned official. Even the papers are also sent to the A.G.
office in the year 2022 itself and except writing the letter to
furnish entire records, nothing is placed to the A.G. Office also
and entire records are secured only in the year 2024 and
thereafter, decision was taken to file the appeal.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the appellants in his argument would vehemently contend
that inspite of efforts are made could not get the records.
Having considered the material on record, suit was filed before
the Trial Court in the year 2012 and judgment was passed in
2020 after lapse of 8 years and the Government was unable to
procure the granted records from 2012 to 2020 and even after
filing an appeal before the First Appellate Court also could not
secure the original records and even while filing the R.S.A., it is
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
HC-KAR
stated that they were unable to secure the records from 2021
to 2024. It is not the case of the State that they were not
having the knowledge about the judgment and decree passed
in R.A.No.346/2020 and reason assigned in the affidavit is also
that the officials, who were engaged in searching the
documents were engaged in election duty and election was not
conducted in 2021 and it was conducted in 2023. The records,
particularly the affidavit itself is clear that decision was taken to
file an appeal and G.O. was issued in 2022 at the first instance,
but the appeal is not filed in 2022 but filed in 2025. Hence, it
clearly discloses the lethargic attitude on the part of the
officials of the State in filing the appeal. Even though appeal
was disposed of in the year 2021, the present appeal is filed in
2025, after lapse of 4 years and the averments in the affidavit
at paragraph No.2 clearly discloses that they were having
knowledge about the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021
and the present appeal is filed on 06.02.2025 and the reason
assigned cannot be accepted.
4. The Apex Court while dealing with similar set of
facts and circumstances, when the appeal was filed before the
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
HC-KAR
Apex Court in 2025 in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs., vs.
Karnataka Housing Board and others,1 the Apex Court held
that the Courts must be mindful that strong case on merits is
no ground for condonation of delay. When an application for
condonation of delay is placed before the Court, the inquiry is
confined to whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated for
not filing the appeal or proceeding within the prescribed period
of limitation. The merits of the underlying case are wholly
extraneous to this inquiry. The purpose of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is not to determine whether the claim is legally
or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a
reasonable justification for the delay. In detail discussion was
made that there cannot be any distinction between the State or
private parties and the court has to take note of lethargic
attitude even in case of State also while filing the appeal and
the appeal cannot be considered on merits unless satisfactory
reasons are given to condone the delay is concerned.
5. The Apex Court also in detail discussed in
paragraph Nos.259 and 260 of the said judgment with regard
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
HC-KAR
to delay is concerned and in the said case on hand, has taken
note of delay of 3,966 days and in paragraph No.260 that it is
abundantly clear that High Court has erroneously condoned a
massive delay of 3,966 days on account of certain lapses at the
administrative levels and of there being no follow-ups in the
proceedings along with finding certain merits in the case of
respondent no. 1 against the maintainability of the suit of the
appellant and that of the relief molded by the first appellate
court. We have no hesitation in stating that such grounds are
nowhere near to being "sufficient cause" as per Section 5 of
Limitation Act, 1963, the High Court lost sight of the fact that
precedents and authorities it relied upon by it had delay of two-
digits or even that of single-digit, more particularly, the delay
in those cases was supported by sufficient cause. The present
case, however, stands on a different footing, owing to such an
enormous delay. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the
condonation of the delay by the High Court.
6. Further, in paragraph No.262, the Hon'ble Apex
Court gave a conclusion that High Courts ought not to give a
legitimizing effect to such a callous attitude of the State
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
HC-KAR
Authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra
cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State
authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity
and lethargy. 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 favourable orders are frustrated at later
stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and
put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with
inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so
the Courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in
appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is
already limited to questions of law. No litigant should be
permitted to be lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted
by the Courts to misuse the process of law.
7. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgment of the Apex Court, it is nothing but apathy on the
part of the officials of the State in the appeal. Hence, I do not
find any ground to condone the delay of 984 days in filing the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43320
HC-KAR
appeal as contended by learned Additional Government
Advocate for the appellants.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Consequently, the
regular second appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
