- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2772 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: M/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMAPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.284, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SUJAL M R GOWDA SON OF RAMASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR R.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, WIFE OF LATE C NARAYANAPPA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 SRI. EREGOWDA S/O LATE C NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE C. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. SRI. NARESH SON OF LATE C. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 4. SMT. MAMATHA DAUGHTER OF LATE C. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAJALA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 5. SRI. R. VENKATESH SON OF M.V. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.693/A, 5TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI I STAGE, II BLOCK, BENGALURU -560050. 6. SRI.A. RAMAKRISHNA SON OF ANJANEYACHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 33, OPP. SRI. RAMA TEMPLE, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU -560092 …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Ravishankar.R.H., counsel for the appellant has appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 2. The appeal is filed to set-aside the order dated:13.12.2016 passed by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Devanahalli in Miscellaneous Petition No.15002/2015 on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of appeal. 3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 4. The captioned appeal is listed today for Hearing - interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1/2023, for condonation of a delay of 1509 days in filing the appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 1509 days in filing the appeal. He submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.360/2009 and the appellant was defendant No.3. The suit was decreed on 30.07.2013 and defendant No.3 was placed ex-parte. Hence, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.15023/2013. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution on 13.06.2014. Hence, a Miscellaneous Petition was filed in No.15002/2015. As there was a delay, an application to condone the delay was filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 However, the Miscellaneous Petition came to be dismissed on 13.02.2016. Aggrieved by the same the appellant filed an appeal in 2023. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2023 seeking condonation of the delay. Sri.Sujai M.R.Gowda, the Director of the appellant company has sworn to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to condone the delay. Counsel submits that the delay caused in filing the appeal is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. Hence, he submits that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant on condonation of delay and perused the appeal papers, application and affidavit with utmost care. 7. Let me see whether the appellant has made out grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 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 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 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 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, it will have to explain the day-to- day delay from the last day of limitation. 8. Reverting to the facts of the case, the suit was decreed on 30.07.2013 and an appeal was preferred. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution on 13.06.2014 and Miscellaneous Petition was filed in No.15002/2015 after a statutory period of limitation and the petition came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the captioned appeal. There is a delay of 1509 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2023 to condone the delay. Perused the application and also the affidavit with care. Sri.Sujai M.R.Gowda, the Director of the appellant - company has sworn to a declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit. In the affidavit, he has stated that the company was not aware of the dismissal of the petition, as the advocate representing the company kept informing that the petition seeking restoration is pending. It is also stated that the petition was listed on 01.10.2016, and the file was not sent to the Court, hence, the further date of hearing was not intimated. It is also stated that the advocate who represented the company informed that in 2017 that the registry was unable to trace the file. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 In the declaration of facts, it is also stated that the company had faced multiple problems with Income Tax Department and the employees were resigning, hence, there was no follow up by the company about the case. It has been stated in the affidavit that due to Covid-19 pandemic the company was not in a good condition. Urging other grounds, it has been prayed to condone the delay. I am unable to accept the reasons accorded in the affidavit. The contention that the appeal was not filed in time cannot be accepted. The reason is simple. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution on 13.06.2014. The Miscellaneous Petition was filed in 2015 and the present appeal was filed in 2023. The appellant ought to have filed the appeal within three months. The world witnessed Covid-19 pandemic from March 2020. Nothing prevented the appellant from filing the appeal well in time or even before the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. There is a massive, unexplained delay of approximately seven years in filing the present appeal, as the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed in 2016 and the appeal was filed in 2023. The Appellant was indolent and failed to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 exercise due diligence, sleeping on their rights for nearly seven years. In my view, the appellant has not made any grounds to condone the delay. As already noted above, the Court has full discretion to refuse an extension of time. I decline to extend the time and condone the delay. 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 permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law. The reasons accorded in the affidavit and the submission made on behalf of the appellant regarding the delay in filing the appeal are not satisfactory, and hence, this Court exercises the discretionary power and refuses an extension of time. Hence, I - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8274 MFA No. 2772 of 2023 decline to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is dismissed. 9. This Court has dismissed the application to condone the delay; hence, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and the interim direction, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50