- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 19940 OF 2022 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD NO.2, LAKSHMINARAYANA BUILDING, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 055, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI. H. VASU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. (PETITIONER IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. S. CHANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE HIS WIFE, SMT. K. D. BEENA W/O. LATE K. S. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 7/3, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 1ST FLOOR, DATTAGALLI, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE-571 112. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560 018. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 1ST CIRCLE, BENGALURU CITY DISTRICT, NO.32, KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.58/2017 DTD 26.4.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN R.P.NO.3/2018 DTD 21.11.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 IN DISPUTE NO.JRB/MD/104/2014- 15 DTD 4.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the Order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Appeal No.58 of 2017 and the Order passed in Review Petition No.3 of 2018 dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The husband of respondent No.1 was one of the members of the petitioner-Society and he had paid a sum of ₹2,000/- for the purpose of allotment of a site in Sidedahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. 4. On 21.07.1997, a final call was issued by the petitioner-Society to its members informing them that vide earlier notices dated 22.04.1997 and 03.06.1997, there was a request for payment of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 ₹10,000/- and as there was a necessity to acquire the property in Survey No.13 where the sites were formed in the area measuring 36 acres 13 guntas to be taken possession to the petitioner-Society, requested that the payment should be made by all members on or before 31.07.1997. 5. The husband of respondent No.1 paid another sum of ₹2,000/- for the purpose of allotment of a site on 29.07.1998. The husband of respondent No.1 filed a petition before the Registrar of the Societies i.e., respondent No.2 claiming for the allotment of a site and the Society had not allotted any site to him. Respondent No.2 allowed the petition filed by the husband of respondent No.1 vide order dated 04.11.2016. 6. The husband of respondent No.1 as a decree holder filed an execution petition in Execution Case No.1869 of 2018, before the learned City Civil Court, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 Bengaluru, to execute the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2016 passed by respondent No.2. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent No.3, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No.58 of 2017 along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.04.2018. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition in Review Petition No.3 of 2018 to review the order dated 26.04.2018. The Tribunal dismissed the review petition on 21.11.2019. Hence, this writ petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for the condonation of delay and the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time. He submits that the sufficient cause shown by the petitioner has not been adequately considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 11. He also submits that the petitioner filed a review petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the review petition. He submits that there is a delay of only 71 days in filing the appeal. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.Katiji and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 and submits - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal must be liberal. He submits that the Tribunal has passed the impugned orders dismissing the Appeal and Review on technical ground. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there is a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned orders. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Learned Additional Government Advocate adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 15. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No.58 of 2017 before the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time, i.e., the impugned order was passed on 04.11.2016 and the petitioner has applied for certified copy on 10.01.2017 and the copy was issued later on. Because the petitioner could not get a certified copy in time, he could not file an appeal well within time. Thus, the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal. 16. The Tribunal, without considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.Khatiji and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, passed the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred (supra), held that the Legislature has conferred the power to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 condone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which will subserves the end of justice, that being the life purpose for the existence of the Institution of the Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justificably liberal approach in the matter instituted in the Courts. 17. Following the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred supra, the Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are arbitrary and erroneous. 18. Accordingly, I pass the following order: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3116 WP No. 19940 of 2022 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned Order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Appeal No.58 of 2017 and the Order passed in Review Petition No.3 of 2018 dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore are hereby quashed. (iii) Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner is allowed. The delay of 71 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is restored to its original file. (iv) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, afresh. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40