- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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, BENGALURU-560 084. REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, 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) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25669 RFA No. 1216 of 2019 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11