- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27548 RFA No. 527 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMAR PARK EAST BENGALURU 560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KIRAN C.V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RANJAN JOHN THOMAS S/O. LATE. SRI. K JOHN THOMAS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 53, DACOSTA LAYOUT ST. THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURUL 560 084. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI.CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE AND SRI.MOHAMMED NAWAZ SHARIFF, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27090/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27548 RFA No. 527 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2017 in O.S No.27090/2011 on the file of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by way of settled possession and for permanent injunction. 3. The appellant filed an application – I.A No.1/2021 seeking for condonation of delay of 774 days in fling the appeal assigning the reasons in paragraph No.5, which reads as under: “It is submitted that copy application for certified copy of the judgment and decree was filed on 1.07.2019 and copy was delivered on 19.07.2019. Thereafter, the appellant has a set of procedure to take a decision whether to file appeal. Due to that process which has to pass through number of sections and officers and in obtaining the required records, took - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27548 RFA No. 527 of 2021 considerable time and immediately after the same, the appeal is filed without loss of any time. The delay caused in filing the appeal is not intentional or due to any malafide intention. By the impugned judgment and decree, the true owner is restrained from exercising the ownership right, which cannot be done.” 4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent filed a detailed statement of objections stating that the reasons assigned in paragraph No.5 of the application is vague and ambiguous. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent vehemently prays to reject the application for delay by citing the several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the application filed by the appellant and its averments, the Trial Court allowed the suit and decree has been drawn accordingly. 6. Be that as it may, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that a suit has to be dismissed on account of delay is concerned, it is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27548 RFA No. 527 of 2021 appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS v. DEO KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 which read as under: “2. We are of the view that a clear signal has to sent to the Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as and when they please, on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any action against the concerned officers. No detail of this delay of 728 days have been given as if there is an inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Government. The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct. 3. That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. [2012(3) SCC 563]. 4. We strongly deprecate the casual manner in which the Division Bench was approached and 1 (2022) 16 SCC 483 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27548 RFA No. 527 of 2021 also this Court has been approached; the objective possibly being to get a certificate of dismissal from this Court. This is complete wastage of judicial time and the petitioners must pay for the same. 5. We, thus, dismiss the special leave petition on delay and impost cost on the petitioners of Rs. 20,000/- to be recovered from the officers responsible for this delay and be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, within four weeks. Certificate of recovery be filed in this court.” 7. Having considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that an application filed for condonation of delay is deserved to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. In view of dismissal of I.A No.1/2021, the appeal does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10