- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1532 WP No. 35113 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 35113 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577501. NOW REP. BY HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., NO. 25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.1, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, MG. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER. COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1532 WP No. 35113 of 2025 AND: 1. C.R. THIMMANNA @ TAMALIHALLI THIMMANNA, S/O. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. R/O. TAMALIHALLI VILLAGE, JAGALURU TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577528. 2. PRABHU.M @ PRABHUKARA .M.M, S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O THOREKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583218 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- TO QUASH THE ORDERS ON IA NO.IV AT ANNX-D DATED 08-10-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ITINERARY COURT, JAGALURU IN M.V.C. NO.400/2023 AT ANNEXURE - A; B. DIRECTION TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO. IV FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND SECTION 166(3) OF THE MV ACT AT ANNX-D IN MVC NO. 400/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ITINERARY COURT, JAGALURU AND HOLD THAT THE CLAIM PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1532 WP No. 35113 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is by an Insurer calling in question the Order dated 08.10.2025 in MVC No.400/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Itinerary Court, Jagaluru, [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by this impugned order, has allowed the application filed by the respondents-claimants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Act'] condoning the delay of 100 days in filing the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sri B Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard in the light of the interim orders granted by the Apex Court in the writ petition in WP [Civil] No. 166/2024 and connected matters. It remains undisputed that the Apex Court, by its interim order dated 16.12.2025, has observed that pendency of the writ petitions/special leave petitions - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1532 WP No. 35113 of 2025 before it shall not come in the way of the claim petitions being adjudicated by the Tribunals but with the stipulation that the judgments shall not be finalized, and the Apex Court's order is in the light of the question whether the Tribunals could condone delay under Section 5 of the Act and entertain the claim petitions. This Court is of the considered view that with the afore stipulation, this petition must be disposed of observing that the Tribunal's impugned order would be subject to the final outcome in the pending matters before the Apex Court, and this Court must next observe that the Tribunal must proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition but without passing Judgment. As such, the petition stands disposed of in the afore terms. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-