- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27549 RFA No. 530 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. 530 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU-560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.KIRAN C.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SANJAY JOHN THOMAS S/O LATE SRI K.JOHN THOMAS MAJOR R/AT NO.53 DACOSTA LAYOUT ST.THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 084. 2. SRI.RANJAN JOHN THOMAS S/O LATE SRI K.JOHN THOMAS MAJOR R/AT NO.53 DACOSTA LAYOUT ST.THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 084. 3. SRI.MANOJI JOHN THOMAS S/O LATE SRI K.JOHN THOMAS MAJOR R/AT NO.53 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27549 RFA No. 530 of 2021 DACOSTA LAYOUT ST.THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 084. 4. SRI.ROY JOHN THOMAS S/O LATE SRI K.JOHN THOMAS MAJOR R/AT NO.53 DACOSTA LAYOUT ST.THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 084 REP BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI RANJAN JOHN THOMAS S/O LATE SRI K.JOHN THOMAS AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.53 DACOSTA LAYOUT ST.THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI.CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MOHAMMED NAWAZ SHARRIFF, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25138/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27549 RFA No. 530 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2018 in O.S No.25138/2011 on the file of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and also not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and also from demolishing or alienating or allotting the suit schedule property to others. 3. The appellant filed an application – I.A No.1/2020 seeking for condonation of delay of 426 days in fling the appeal assigning the reasons in paragraph No.6, which reads as under: “The judgment was delivered on 25.10.2018 and copy application was filed on 31.10.2018 and copy was delivered on 04.12.2018. After the judgment, it was processed through legal cell and it was decided to file appeal challenging the impugned judgment. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27549 RFA No. 530 of 2021 judgments passed in similar passed in similar other cases are already challenged before this Hon’ble Court by filing an appeal and they are pending consideration. The delay caused in filing the above appeal is due to bonafide reason and not due negligence.” 4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents filed a detailed statement of objections stating that the reasons assigned in paragraph No.6 of the application is vague and ambiguous. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 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 respondents vehemently contended that a suit has to be dismissed on account of delay is concerned, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS v. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27549 RFA No. 530 of 2021 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 also this Court has been approached; the objective possibly being to get a certificate of dismissal from this Court. This is complete 1 (2022) 16 SCC 483 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27549 RFA No. 530 of 2021 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.1/2020, the appeal does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11