- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33308-DB COMAP No. 357 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI SRIKANTESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE RASTRAPATHI ROAD NANJANGUD CITY MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301 …APPELLANT (BY SRI HARSHITH N. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. (a) (b) SRI MANJUNATHESHWARA ELECTRICALS LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS BY PARTNERS- SRI. S. NARAYAN SON OF LATE SRI S. SHESHANNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SMT. R. JAYANTHI W/O SRI. S. NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDED AT NO. 3447 14TH CROSS EXTENSION Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33308-DB COMAP No. 357 of 2025 NANJANGUD CITY MYSURU DISTRICT- 571 301 2. THE SECRETARY MUZRAI DEPARTMENT HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001 5. SRI MANWACHAR ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SRI MALE MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE M M HILLS, KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313 …RESPONDENTS THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2024 COM.OS NO.31/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVELY COMMERCIAL COURT) AT MYSURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS THE SUIT IN COM.O.S.NO.31/2020 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33308-DB COMAP No. 357 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present commercial appeal impugning a judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Com.O.S. No.31/2020. 2. There is an inordinate delay of 437 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application seeking to explain the inordinate delay. 3. It is stated that, after the impugned judgment was pronounced, the appellant (Executive Officer of Sri Srikanteswara Temple, Nanjangud, Mysuru) had applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree and had shown the same to the Head Office at Bengaluru for seeking an approval for filing an appeal. The office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bengaluru had communicated the approval for filing the appeal by a letter dated 19.12.2024. It is stated that thereafter - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33308-DB COMAP No. 357 of 2025 the appellant had contacted the counsel for collating the necessary papers and drafting the appeal and, therefore, there is a delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit supporting the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are set out below: "9. I state that since the documents were voluminous and there were several departments which had to ascertain whether an appeal was to be filed, there was a delay in obtaining the necessary sanctions from the department. I state that after obtaining the certified copies, the judgment and decree was shown to the head office at Bengaluru and the office of the Commissioner had given an approval for filing the appeal vide letter dated 19.12.2024. A copy of the letter addressed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments is produced herewith as Document No.1. 10. I state that subsequently I had contacted by counsel who had to collate all the necessary papers for the drafting of the appeal. I state that as stated above, during the said period of obtaining the necessary approvals, there was a delay in the filing of the appeal." 5. It is apparent from the above that the appellant has not provided any specific dates of events, which has resulted in delay in filing the appeal. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay after 19.12.2024. The present appeal was filed on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33308-DB COMAP No. 357 of 2025 11.06.2025, which is almost six months after the appellant had reportedly obtained the approval for filing the appeal. 6. We find it relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited: (2012) 3 SCC 563: "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33308-DB COMAP No. 357 of 2025 process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." 7. In a recent decision in the case of Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited: (2021) 6 SCC 460, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Court Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches." 8. An inordinate delay of 437 days in filing appeals relating to commercial disputes cannot be condoned without the appellant satisfying the court of sufficient cause for such delay. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33308-DB COMAP No. 357 of 2025 9. In view of the above, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well. 10. Pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15