After State Implemented Man’s SSLC Birth-Date Change, Karnataka HC Rejects Its Review Filed 1,075 Days Late

The respondent had obtained a decree in RFA No. 1147/2006 directing correction of his date of birth in his SSLC records.

The High Court delivered that judgment on 8 June 2022.

The petitioners filed this review petition on 17 June 2025, accompanied by an application to condone a delay of 1,075 days.

The petitioners attributed the delay to prolonged correspondence and decision-making between the Board and State authorities, including steps taken to implement the decree and later consideration of challenging it.

The respondent opposed both the delay application and the review petition.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation only where sufficient cause is established; the discretion must be exercised judicially, and delay accompanied by negligence, inaction, or want of due diligence need not be condoned. The court must consider the explanation for the delay and the relevant circumstances, rather than condoning delay merely to allow a case to be heard on its merits.

The Court relied, among other authorities, on Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasi Rao v. Reddy Sridevi, Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, Pathapati Subbareddy v. Special Deputy Collector, Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, and State of Odisha v. Managing Committee.

Under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, review is confined to grounds such as an error apparent on the face of the record; it is not an appeal in disguise, and an error requiring a long process of reasoning does not ordinarily qualify.

The Court found that the petitioners’ own chronology showed prolonged administrative inaction: despite receiving legal advice in July 2022 that a challenge was warranted, they failed to take timely effective steps; in April 2024, they directed implementation of the decree, and the correction was made and accepted in May 2024. They nevertheless continued considering a challenge and filed the review petition only in June 2025, without satisfactorily explaining the intervening periods.

The Court held that administrative delay and lack of diligence did not constitute sufficient cause, particularly where the petitioners had implemented the judgment before seeking review.

On the merits, the Court found no illegality, infirmity, or error apparent on the face of the record in the original judgment; the review grounds did not meet the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

It dismissed both I.A. No. 1/2025 for condonation of delay and the review petition.