Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6622 OF 2021 (AA)
BETWEEN:
M/S SRI MALLIKARJUNA RICE MILLS
AGARADAHALLI,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY MANAGING,
PARTNER SRI, M E BASAVARAJAPPA,
S/O. M ESHWARAPPA,
R/O. AGARADAHALLI,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LTD
BANGALORE BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. H. NAGARAJA SHETTY, IAS
ARBITRATOR AND CHAIRMAN,
MYSORE SUGAR CO., LTD.,
JC ROAD, BANGALORE
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 12.12.2022)
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 39 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1940.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Basanagouda, counsel for the appellant and
Sri.Nandish Gowda G.B., counsel for the respondent No.1
have appeared in person.
2. The appeal is filed to set-aside the order
dated:03.04.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, at Shivamogga in AROS No.10/1990 on
several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of appeal.
3. The captioned appeal is listed today for
Hearing - interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1/2022, for
condonation of a delay of 2082 days in filing the appeal.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a
delay of 2082 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an
application is filed in I.A.No.1/2022 seeking condonation of
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
the delay. Sri.M.E.Basavaraju - appellant 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.
Counsel Sri. Nandish Gowda G.B., for the respondent
No.1, submits that a detailed statement of objections is
filed to I.A.No.1/2022, and the same may be taken note
of, and the application may be dismissed. Counsel on
instructions further submits that the decree has already
been executed. Counsel, therefore, submits that the
appeal may be dismissed.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the
respective parties on condonation of delay and perused
the appeal papers, application, affidavit and the statement
of objections with utmost care.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
6. 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 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.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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 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
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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, a petition
under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was filed
seeking a decree in terms of the award passed by the
arbitrator. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree
dated 03.04.2014, allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff has filed the captioned appeal. There is
a delay of 2082 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an
application is filed in I.A.No.1/2022 to condone the delay.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
Perused the application and also the affidavit with
care. M.E.Basavaraju - appellant has sworn to a
declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit. In the
affidavit, he has stated that the respondent No.1 -
Corporation had filed Execution Proceedings against him in
terms of the Order dated 03.04.2014 passed in
AROS.10/1990, and he was unaware of the order dated
03.04.2014. He has further stated that his counsel had not
intimated to him regarding the said order, and he came to
know about the order during August, 2021. Subsequently,
he obtained the certified copies of the documents and
instructed his counsel at Bangalore to file the instant
appeal. Further, in view of the spread of Corona virus in
the country, he could not come down to Bangalore and
give instructions to prefer the instant appeal in time.
I am unable to accept the reasons accorded in the
affidavit. The suit was filed for the recovery of money. As
the suit was decreed, the appellants should have been
more diligent. The contention that the appeal was not filed
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
due to the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be accepted. The
reason is simple. The Court decreed the suit on
03.04.2014 and the appeal was filed in 2021. The
appellants ought to have filed the appeal within three
months. The world witnessed Covid-19 pandemic from
March 2020. Nothing prevented the appellants 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 decree was passed in 2014 and the appeal was filed
in 2021. The Appellant was indolent and failed to exercise
due diligence, sleeping on their rights for nearly seven
years. In my view, the appellants have 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,
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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 appellants regarding the delay in filing the
appeal are not satisfactory, and hence, this Court
exercises the discretionary power and refuses an extension
of time. Moreover, counsel for the respondent submits that
the decree has already been executed. Hence, I decline to
condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 is
dismissed.
8. This Court has dismissed the application to
condone the delay; hence, there is nothing to discuss on
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6622 OF 2021 (AA)
BETWEEN:
M/S SRI MALLIKARJUNA RICE MILLS
AGARADAHALLI,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY MANAGING,
PARTNER SRI, M E BASAVARAJAPPA,
S/O. M ESHWARAPPA,
R/O. AGARADAHALLI,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577227
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LTD
BANGALORE BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. H. NAGARAJA SHETTY, IAS
ARBITRATOR AND CHAIRMAN,
MYSORE SUGAR CO., LTD.,
JC ROAD, BANGALORE
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 12.12.2022)
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 39 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1940.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Basanagouda, counsel for the appellant and
Sri.Nandish Gowda G.B., counsel for the respondent No.1
have appeared in person.
2. The appeal is filed to set-aside the order
dated:03.04.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, at Shivamogga in AROS No.10/1990 on
several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of appeal.
3. The captioned appeal is listed today for
Hearing - interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1/2022, for
condonation of a delay of 2082 days in filing the appeal.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a
delay of 2082 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an
application is filed in I.A.No.1/2022 seeking condonation of
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
the delay. Sri.M.E.Basavaraju - appellant 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.
Counsel Sri. Nandish Gowda G.B., for the respondent
No.1, submits that a detailed statement of objections is
filed to I.A.No.1/2022, and the same may be taken note
of, and the application may be dismissed. Counsel on
instructions further submits that the decree has already
been executed. Counsel, therefore, submits that the
appeal may be dismissed.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the
respective parties on condonation of delay and perused
the appeal papers, application, affidavit and the statement
of objections with utmost care.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
6. 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 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.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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 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
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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, a petition
under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was filed
seeking a decree in terms of the award passed by the
arbitrator. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree
dated 03.04.2014, allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff has filed the captioned appeal. There is
a delay of 2082 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an
application is filed in I.A.No.1/2022 to condone the delay.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
Perused the application and also the affidavit with
care. M.E.Basavaraju - appellant has sworn to a
declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit. In the
affidavit, he has stated that the respondent No.1 -
Corporation had filed Execution Proceedings against him in
terms of the Order dated 03.04.2014 passed in
AROS.10/1990, and he was unaware of the order dated
03.04.2014. He has further stated that his counsel had not
intimated to him regarding the said order, and he came to
know about the order during August, 2021. Subsequently,
he obtained the certified copies of the documents and
instructed his counsel at Bangalore to file the instant
appeal. Further, in view of the spread of Corona virus in
the country, he could not come down to Bangalore and
give instructions to prefer the instant appeal in time.
I am unable to accept the reasons accorded in the
affidavit. The suit was filed for the recovery of money. As
the suit was decreed, the appellants should have been
more diligent. The contention that the appeal was not filed
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
due to the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be accepted. The
reason is simple. The Court decreed the suit on
03.04.2014 and the appeal was filed in 2021. The
appellants ought to have filed the appeal within three
months. The world witnessed Covid-19 pandemic from
March 2020. Nothing prevented the appellants 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 decree was passed in 2014 and the appeal was filed
in 2021. The Appellant was indolent and failed to exercise
due diligence, sleeping on their rights for nearly seven
years. In my view, the appellants have 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,
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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 appellants regarding the delay in filing the
appeal are not satisfactory, and hence, this Court
exercises the discretionary power and refuses an extension
of time. Moreover, counsel for the respondent submits that
the decree has already been executed. Hence, I decline to
condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 is
dismissed.
8. This Court has dismissed the application to
condone the delay; hence, there is nothing to discuss on
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6268
MFA No. 6622 of 2021
HC-KAR
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
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15