- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3723 MFA No. 3397 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3397 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: HEMANTHA S/O. MANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS IGOORU VILLAGE YESLURU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK-573 134 …APPELLANT (BY SRI MAHADEV SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI MURTHY D. L. ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SYED GHOUSE S/O. SYED KASIM BEG MAJOR MOSQUE ROAD Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3723 MFA No. 3397 of 2021 RIVER BANK ROAD HOLENARASIPUR TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN C., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (ABSENT)) R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1082/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., M.A.C.T, SAKALESHPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3723 MFA No. 3397 of 2021 ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2021 This is a petition filed seeking the Court to condone the delay of 746 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Heard Sri.Mahadev Swamy who represents Sri.Murthy.D.L, learned counsel on record for the petitioner/appellant. 3. No representation on respondents' side on call. 4. The single statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner for condonation of delay is that the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within time due to COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing more is stated. When this Court brought to the notice of learned counsel for the petitioner that this interlocutory application is pending, then learned counsel gave such a statement. Even in the affidavit given in support of the petition, the reason is shown that due to spread of pandemic, appeal could not be filed within time. However, as per office endorsement total period of delay is 1,237 days. Excluding the period - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3723 MFA No. 3397 of 2021 exempted due to pandemic i.e., 491 days, the period of delay has come to 746 days. Thus this 746 days delay cannot be attributed to COVID-19 pandemic. Though not for each day, the petitioner is under liability at least to give reasons for the delay as a whole. No reason whatsoever is averted in the affidavit given in support of the petition and learned counsel who represents the petitioner has not chosen to state any convincing reason even today for such delay. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2024) 12 SCC 336 between Pathapati Subba Reddy and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector dealing with similar issue at para 28 of the judgment held as under: "28. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: 28.1. Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; 28.2. A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3723 MFA No. 3397 of 2021 28.3. The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; 28.4. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; 28.5. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; 28.6. Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; 28.7. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and 28.8. Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 6. One should not think or imagine that the Courts will casually dispose of the interlocutory applications and condone any amount of delay though the reason stated is beyond truth or where no reason is stated at all. Having found no convincing grounds to condone the delay of 746 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3723 MFA No. 3397 of 2021 days, this Court is of the view that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11