MAHADEVASWAMY vs SHIVARAJU. H. M.
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7731 / 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHADEVASWAMY
S/O. LATE DESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. PUTTASWAMY
S/O. LATE DESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT KESTHURU VILLAGE,
YELANDUR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVARAJU H. M.
S/O. MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O. HEGGAVADIPURA VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK.
2.
KEMPAMMA
W/O. BASAVALINGAIAH,
R/O. NO. 28, MADHUVANAHALLY VILLAGE,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK.
3.
THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
#1134, DEVARU MANSION,
NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE,
MYSURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(NIL)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2017 PASSED IN
MVC.NO. 417/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, CHAMARAJANAGARA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard on IA No.1/2024.
2. IA No.1/2024 is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 2060
days in filing the appeal.
3. In the affidavit annexed to I.A. No.1/2024,
appellant No.1 would submit that he had filed a claim
petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation in
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
respect of the death of his son in a road traffic accident
that occurred on 19.09.2015. The Tribunal awarded
compensation of ` 1,38,000/-. The said judgment and
award is on the lower side. Due to his ill-health and the
fact that he was residing adjacent to the forest area in
Chamarajanagar District, he could not meet his counsel in
time to prefer the appeal, and thus, there was a delay in
preferring the appeal.
4. Having heard arguments, the point that arises
for consideration is:
“Whether the appellant proves that he was
prevented from sufficient cause in not preferring the
appeal within the prescribed period of limitation?”
5. Finding of this Court is in ' Negative ' for the
following:
REASONS
6. The present appeal is filed challenging the
award passed in MVC No.417/2015 dated 02.01.2017 on
the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
MACT, Chamarajanagar. There is an inordinate delay of
more than seven years in preferring this appeal.
7. The date of the judgment of the Tribunal is
02.01.2017, and the present appeal is filed on
07.11.2024. Thus, there is a delay of more than seven
years in filing the appeal. The office has deducted 716
days on account of COVID-19 while computing the period
of limitation. However, in the present case, the period of
limitation commenced long prior to the commencement of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, the delay in filing the
appeal is 2,776 days and not 2,060 days, as stated in I.A.
No.1/2024.
8. The only reason assigned by appellant No.1 is
that he was suffering from ill-health. He has not
mentioned the nature of his ill-health or the period during
which he could not contact his counsel. The other reason
assigned is that he is residing adjacent to the forest area
of Chamarajanagar District and, thus, could not contact his
counsel. These contentions cannot be accepted for the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
simple reason that the delay is more than seven years in
preferring the appeal. No sufficient cause is shown for
such inordinate delay.
9. On this aspect, this Court places reliance on the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba
Reddy (Died) by LRs. And Others vs. Special Deputy
Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 12 SCC 336 and
Thirunagalingam vs. Lingeshwaran and Another in
Civil Appeal No…….. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C)
No.17575 of 2023) was delivered. In Thirunagalingam’s
case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
“28. Since the Respondents assigned the very
same reasons in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in Unnumbered
A.S. No... of 2022 as raised in I.A. Nos. 462 of
2018 and 119 of 2019 that had already been
dismissed by this Court vide S.L.P.(C) Nos.2054 &
2055 of 2022, the application for condonation of
delay of 1116 days cannot be sustained. This
Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2054 & 2055 of 2022,
after going through the evidence placed on record,
rightly held that the delay has not been properly
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
explained. The relevant portion of the order is
reproduced hereunder:
"5. We are in complete agreement with
the view taken by the High Court. Once it
was found even by the learned trial Court
that delay has not been properly
explained, and even there are no merits
in the application for condonation of
delay, thereafter, the matter should rest
there and the condonation of delay
application was required to be dismissed.
The approach adopted by the learned trial
Court that, even after finding that, in
absence of any material evidence it
cannot be said that the delay has been
explained and that there are no merits in
the application, still to condone the delay
would be giving a premium to a person
who fails to explain the delay and who is
guilty of delay and laches. At this stage,
the decision of this Court in the case of
Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land
Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10
SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In
the said decision, it is observed and held
that the law of limitation may harshly
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
affect a particular party but it has to be
applied with all its rigour when the
statute so prescribes. The Court has no
power to extend the period of limitation
on equitable grounds. The statutory
provision may cause hardship or
inconvenience to a particular party but
the Court has no choice but to enforce it
giving full effect to the same.
5.1 In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah
v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157, in paragraph
14, it is observed and held as under:
"The law of limitation is founded on
public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963
has not been enacted with the object of
destroying the rights of the parties but to
ensure that they approach the court for
vindication of their rights without
unreasonable delay. The idea underlying
the concept of limitation is that every
remedy should remain alive only till the
expiry of the period fixed by the
legislature. At the same time, the courts
are empowered to condone the delay
provided that sufficient cause is shown by
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
the applicant for not availing the remedy
within the prescribed period of limitation.”
6. In view of the above and for the
reasons stated above, we are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the
High Court. The Special Leave Petitions
stand dismissed.
Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
29. xxxxx
30. xxxxx
31. xxxxx
32. Further, this Court has repeatedly
emphasised in several cases that delay should not
be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The
pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the
cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In
the present case, the respondents/defendants
have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of
delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial
requirement for condoning the delay remains
unmet.”
10. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has discussed its various earlier judgments. In that
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
case, there was delay of 1116 days. However, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that such delay without giving appropriate
reasons cannot be condoned.
11. In the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy’s case
cited supra, by relying upon earlier judgments of Hon’ble
Apex Court, finally it is concluded 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;
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;
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
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
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
for the reason that the conditions have been
imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the
statutory provision.
29. xxxxx
30. xxxxx
31. xxxxx
32. The aforesaid decisions would not cut
any ice as imposition of conditions are not
warranted when sufficient cause has not been
shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay
is not liable to be condoned merely because
some persons have been granted relief on the
facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in
such circumstances is in violation of the
legislative intent or the express provision of the
statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the
reason that the claimants have been deprived
of the interest for the delay without holding
that they had made out a case for condoning
the delay is not a correct approach, particularly
when both the above decisions have been
rendered in ignorance of the earlier
pronouncement in Basawaraj.”
12. In the aforesaid case, the case was dismissed
on the ground of barred by limitation in the case of Land
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
Acquisition case, which is a benevolent legislation; present
case is also under MV Act, which is also a benevolent
legislation.
13. With this background, the facts of the present
case are to be analysed in detail.
14. In the instant case, the first reason assigned by
the appellant No.1 is that he was suffering from ill-health.
He has not mentioned the nature of his ill-health or the
period during which he could not contact his counsel.
Another reason assigned is that he is residing adjacent to
the forest area of Chamarajanagar District and, thus,
could not contact his counsel. No reason is assigned for
such inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. It is the
responsibility of the appellant to know the result of the
case after filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. The
delay is more than seven years in this case. It is only due
to his negligence that he has failed to file the appeal within
the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant has failed
to establish due diligence. Under these circumstances, the
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61793
MFA No. 7731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010640762024
merits of the case cannot be looked into, as observed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra.
15. Under these circumstances, relying on the
principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court holds that the appellant has
not produced any material to establish that he was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within
the prescribed period of limitation. The reasons assigned
for condoning the delay of 2,776 days in the affidavit
annexed to I.A. No.1/2024 are not acceptable.
16. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
(i) I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is dismissed.
(ii) Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as
barred by limitation.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SPV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20