Dismissed¶17

R Paramananda Singh v. M/S Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025CP/24/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 2476 days; Order 44 Rule 1 / Order XLIV Rule 1 CPC; prosecution of appeal as indigent person; Section 5 Limitation Act sufficient cause; party cannot take advantage of own wrong; RFA No.896/2016; O.S.No.3117/2013 decree dated 30.01.2016; I.A.No.1/2023 rejected; I.A.No.1/2016 dismissed 04.06.2021; peremptory order 28.10.2022; last chance 30.11.2022; petition filed 09.01.2023; Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.; State of Karnataka; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; single judge V Srishananda; decided 16 October 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:41202; civil petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The claim that the Division Bench dealing with RFA No.896/2016 granted time to file the civil petition in the regular format is belied by the order sheet: no such permission or liberty was granted by the Court. ¶11

R Paramananda Singh Vs M/S Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A.No.1/2023 seeking condonation of the huge delay of 2476 days in filing the Civil Petition should be allowed. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

All that the records show is that time was repeatedly granted to the petitioners, who were appellants, to carry out instructions and file a separate Civil Petition.

¶12

Key takeaways

No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1/2023 as to why the petitioners could not file the Civil Petition earlier, soon after the order dated 04.06.2021.ratio¶12
A party to the proceedings cannot take advantage of his own wrong; when there is a prayer for condonation of a huge delay, the reasons must be satisfactory and sufficient reasons as found under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶13
The reasons assigned by petitioner No.2 in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1/2023 contain no reasons whatsoever, much less valid and sufficient reasons, to condone the huge delay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Petition No. 24 of 2023 (High Court of Karnataka, V Srishananda J, 16.10.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:41202): The appellants in RFA No.896/2016 (arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3117/2013 dated 30.01.2016) filed a civil petition under Order XLIV Rule 1 CPC on 09.01.2023 seeking leave to prosecute the appeal as indigent persons, with I.A.No.1/2023 seeking condonation of a delay of 2476 days. Held, rejecting I.A.No.1/2023 and dismissing the civil petition: (i) the order sheet disclosed no permission or liberty from the Division Bench to file the petition in the regular format, contrary to the affidavit's claim — only repeated grants of time (dismissal of I.A.No.1/2016 on 04.06.2021 with three weeks; two weeks on 01.07.2021; four weeks on 10.02.2022 noting petitioner No.1's brain haemorrhage; peremptory four weeks on 28.10.2022; last-chance four weeks on 30.11.2022); (ii) the affidavit of petitioner No.2 contained no reasons whatsoever, much less valid and sufficient reasons under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly for the period after 04.06.2021; (iii) a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong, and time granted by the Division Bench cannot excuse a belated petition carrying a delay of 2476 days.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41202 CP No. 24 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL PETITION NO. 24 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

R PARAMANANDA SINGH

¶10

S/O RAMAKRISHNA SINGH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO. 12, 1ST MAIN 3RD CROSS, ASHWINI LAYOUT EJIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 047.

¶11

SMT. GAYATRHI SINGH W/O PARAMANANDA SINGH AGED 54 YEARS R/AT NO. 12, 1ST MAIN 3RD CROSS, ASHIWNI LAYOUT EJIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 047.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. JOSE SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

M/S INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD., HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT INDIABULLS HOUSE NO. 448-451, UDYOG VIHAR PHASE V, GURGOAN - 122 001, ALSO HAVING BRANCH OFFICE IN JATTI BUILDING NEAR JYOTHINIVAS COLLEGE INDUSTRIAL AREA KORMANGALA 5TH BLOCK

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41202 CP No. 24 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BANGALORE - 560 095.

¶20

M/S INDIA BULLS FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD., HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT INDIABULLS HOUSE NO 448-451, UDYOG VIHAR PHASE V, GURGOAN - 122 001 ALSO HAVING BRANCH OFFICE IN JATTI BUILDING NEAR JYOTHINIVAS COLLEGE INDUSTRIAL AREA, KORMANGALA 5TH BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 095.

¶21

SRI. DR THAMBAIAH SUNDARAM S/O LT COL THAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO 910, NORTH EAST AVE SANTA MARIA CA 93454 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALSO R/AT NO 61, 19TH CROSS B.K. NAGAR, YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE - 560 022.

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY VIDHANASOUDHA, Dr. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. HEMAVATHI A.T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R4; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 44 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO PROSECUTE THE RFA NO. 896/2016 AS INDIGENT PERSON BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL PETITION AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41202 CP No. 24 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM MEET IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The memo of the certified copy of the order sheet in RFA.No.896/2016 is filed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶34

Heard Sri.Jose Sabastian, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Hemavathy.A.T, counsel for Sri.Chinthan Chinnappa, learned counsel for the contesting respondent on I.A.No.1/2023.

¶35

The present civil petition is filed by the appellants in RFA No.896/2016 under Order XLIV Rule 1 of CPC with the following prayer:

¶36

"WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the petitioners to prosecute the RFA.No.896/2016 as indigent person by allowing this Civil Petition and to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deem meet in the interest of justice and equity."

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:41202 CP No. 24 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

There is a delay of 2476 days in filing the present

¶41

Civil Petition.

¶42

I.A.No.1/2023 is filed seeking condonation of the huge delay of 2476 days in filing the present petition. The application is supported by Smt.Gayathri Singh, who is the 2nd petitioner in the present petition.

¶43

In the affidavit, it is stated that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3117/2013 dated 30.01.2016, an appeal came to be filed in RFA No.896/2016, which was filed in time. An application was filed along with the said appeal vide I.A.No.1 seeking leave of the Court to prosecute the said appeal as indigent persons by the appellants. However, no separate petition under Order XLIV Rule 1 of CPC was filed along with the appeal. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2016 came to be dismissed by order dated 04.06.2021. Three weeks' time was granted to the petitioners to do the needful.

¶44

However petitioners did not choose to file a separate petition seeking leave of the court after holding an enquiry that the appellants/petitioners were indigent persons

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:41202 CP No. 24 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

and again two weeks' time was granted on 01.07.2021. Petitioners for reasons best known to them, did not file a separate petition even then. By Order dated 10.02.2022, a further four weeks' time was granted, noting the request of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 has suffered brain haemorrhage.

¶49

Even said opportunity was not utilized by the petitioners and by order dated 28.10.2022 there was a peremptory order passed granting four weeks' time to file a civil petition. Even after granting the final four weeks' time. There was no compliance in filing the separate petition seeking an order that petitioners are to be declared as indigent persons and to entertain the appeal, as appeal by an indigent persons.

¶50

Left with no alternative, on 30.11.2022, in the appeal further four weeks' time was granted as a last chance. The present petition came to be filed on 09.01.2023.

¶51

In the affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner No.2

¶52

has also stated that Division Bench of this Court which was dealing with RFA No.896/2016 granted time to file civil petition

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:41202 CP No. 24 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

in the regular format and therefore, the delay is to be condoned.

¶57

On perusal of the order sheet filed today, along with the memo, there is no such permission or liberty that has been granted by the Court.

¶58

All that is found from the records is repeatedly time was granted for the petitioners who were appellants to carry out necessary instructions to file a separate Civil Petition. Absolutely, no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1/2023 as to why the petitioners could not file the Civil Petition earlier soon after the order dated 04.06.2021.

¶59

A party to the proceedings cannot take advantage of his own wrong is the settled principles of law and when there is a prayer for condonation of huge delay of 2476 days in filing the present petition, the reasons must be satisfactory and sufficient reasons as is found under Section 5 of the Limitation

¶60

Act.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:41202 CP No. 24 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

In the case on hand, the reasons assigned in the affidavit by petitioner No.2 in support of I.A.No.1/2023, does not contain any reasons whatsoever much less valid and sufficient reasons to condone the huge delay.

¶65

Taking advantage of the fact that Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.896/2016 has granted time and belated petition having delay of 2476 days cannot be condoned.

¶66

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is rejected.

¶67

Consequently, the civil petition is also dismissed .

¶68

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶69

rv,KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK

R Paramananda Singh v. M/S Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Paramananda Singh v. M/S Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rathnamma Vs Smt Papamma

Sri. Narasimha Hegde Vs Mr. M.V. Kiran

S.Chandrashekhar Vs R.K.Ravindrakumar

Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Vs Smt C Ramakka

Sri. Jagadish Vs Smt Susheela

Mrs. Susan Rahaman @ Ayesha Rahaman Vs New India Assurance Company Limited