- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REVIEW PETITION NO. 429 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. V.MALA, W/O SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT 4TH WARD, DESHADA PETE, DODDABALLAPUR - 561203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOHAR V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA G.N., S/O LATE G.S.NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, CAR STREET, DODDABALLAPURA-561203. 2. SRI M.NAGARAJU, S/O MUNIBYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.11, MANCHAPANA HOSAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 572129. 3. SRI P.S.RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO 1233, KUCHAPPANA PETE DODDABALLAPURA - 561203. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF CPC READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908. THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Manohar V., counsel on behalf of Sri.Nagaraj S., for the review petitioner, appeared in person. 2. The review petition is filed seeking a review the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by this Court in MSA No.72 of 2019. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 1,145 days in filing the petition. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay. Smt.V.Mala, the review petitioner, has sworn to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to condone the delay. Counsel submits that the delay caused in filing the petition is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. Hence, he submits that the delay in filing the petition may be condoned and the petition may be heard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 4. Heard the contentions on the condonation of delay and perused the papers, application and affidavit with utmost care. 5. This review petition presents a compelling case, as it is primarily predicated upon a judicial obiter dictum. 6. Let me see whether the petitioner has made out grounds to condone the delay in filing the petition. Before I answer the point, 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 fanciful manner. Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of “judicial generosity”. Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as of right. 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/petition 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 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 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 appellant/petitioner 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 review petitioner was the first respondent in the appeal, and she was duly represented by counsel. Taking note of the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties, this court disposed of the appeal on the Seventh day of July, 2022, and the review petition was filed on the 24th day of September, 2025. There is a delay of 1145 days in filing the petition. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed in I.A.No.1/2025 to condone the delay. 8. Perused the application and also the affidavit with care. Smt.V.Mala, the petitioner, has sworn to a declaration of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 facts in the form of an affidavit. It is submitted by the Petitioner, as stated in her affidavit, that a writ petition was filed, and the Court, while hearing the same, voiced an opinion that the order passed in the appeal be reviewed. The petitioner's reliance on the observation made in the 2023 writ petition to justify the delay in the review petition is legally unsustainable, as the period of limitation for filing a review commences from the date of the order sought to be reviewed, not from any subsequent judicial comment or expression. 9. The petitioner cannot seek a review of an order based solely on an expression or a remark made by a judge. An obiter dictum of the Court does not constitute a binding precedent and thus cannot form a valid ground for review of the final order. I may venture to say that the expression made by the Judge in the 2023 writ petition does not extend or revalidate the statutory period of limitation for filing the present review application, which is clearly time-barred. The assertion of the petitioner in seeking to explain the delay by referring to the 2023 judicial expression is without basis, as the principles governing condonation of delay require a showing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 of bona fide reasons that prevented the petitioner from filing within the prescribed time, not a reinterpretation of a prior, separate judicial comment. 10. The petitioner has not made any grounds to condone the delay. Furthermore, the Court has full discretion to refuse an extension of time. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS VS. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & OTHERS - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11794 OF 2025, disposed of on 12.09.2025, has held that the constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigation, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favorable orders are frustrated at later stages. The Apex Court has also held that no litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be allowed by the courts to misuse the process of law. The reasons provided in the affidavit and the submission made on behalf of the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the review petition cannot be accepted; hence, this Court exercises its discretionary power and refuses an extension of time. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53455 RP No. 429 of 2025 11. I decline to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Resultantly, the review petition is also rejected. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 .