Sri. D.M. Lokesh, v. Smt. Sarojamma Dead by Her Lrs Sri. Rudregowda

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2025WP/32481/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; permission to file written statement; Section 151 CPC; Article 227 certiorari; GM-CPC; inordinate delay of more than nine years and two months; sufficient cause; affidavit lacking averments; Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024) 12 SCC 336; Basawaraj; Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana; O.S.No.93/2016 Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Kollegal; WP No. 32481 of 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:50523; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The affidavit annexed to the applications contained absolutely no averments as to the reasons assigned or cause shown for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. ¶6

Sri. D.M. Lokesh, Vs Smt. Sarojamma Dead by Her… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the common order dated 15.9.2025 of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal in O.S.No.93/2016, dismissing I.A.Nos.XXI and XXII under Section 151 CPC, should be quashed by writ of certiorari under Article 227. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Before deciding, the Court extracted and considered paras 26, 28(28.1 to 28.8) and 30 of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024) 12 SCC 336 on the rigour of the law of limitation and the parameters for condonation of delay.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The affidavit annexed to the applications contained absolutely no averments as to the reasons assigned or cause shown for condoning the delay in filing the written statement.

¶6

Key takeaways

In the absence of any bona fide, sufficient cause or satisfactory explanation from the petitioner, the Court found no good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order; the order does not call for interference.ratio¶8
The Court did not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, as no adverse order was being passed against them.obiter¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 (GM-CPC) by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.93/2016 (Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal) seeking certiorari quashing of the common order dated 15.9.2025 dismissing his I.A.Nos.XXI and XXII under Section 151 CPC, whereby he had sought reopening of the case from plaintiff-side evidence to the written-statement stage, with condonation of delay, and permission to file his written statement. The trial court had found inordinate delay of more than nine years and two months. The High Court (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.) observed that the affidavit annexed to the applications contained absolutely no averments showing the reasons assigned or cause shown for condoning the delay; extracted the principles in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), (2024) 12 SCC 336 (law of limitation applied with rigour; discretion to condone depends on sufficient cause; inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence weigh against condonation); and dismissed the petition, holding that no bona fide, sufficient cause or satisfactory explanation having been shown, the impugned order did not call for interference.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32481 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI D.M.LOKESH S/O. LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT PODUVALA HATTI KERI BEEDI, SURAPURA VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK - 571 440 CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.SUNITHA P.C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. SAROJAMMA DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶13

SRI RUDREGOWDA

¶14

S/O. LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶15

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O. LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶18

SRI MAYANK S/O. LATE JAYARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.

¶19

RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT: KAVERI COLLEGE QUARTERS GONIKOPPAL, PONNAMPETE TALUK KOLDAGU DISTRICT - 571 213.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SMT. LINGARAJAMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKAMARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶25

SRI SIDDARAJU D/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶26

SMT. RENUKA D/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA W/O. MUTHURAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT:THELLANURU VILLAGE KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440 CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶27

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶28

SRI PRADEEP S/O. LATE SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶29

SRI RAJU S/O. LATE SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS .

¶30

RESPONDENT NO.1, 4 TO 6 & 8 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT: KERE BEEDI SURAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶31

SRI RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

S/O. KEMPAJOGI SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT RAJUGOWDANAGARA AREPALYA HAMLET KOLLEGAL TALUK -571 440 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH COMMON ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION ON I.A.NOS.XXI AND XXII UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGAL IN O.S.NO.93/2016 DATED 15.9.2025 UNDER ANNEXURE-G BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, WHICH IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Heard learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.2.

¶42

Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶43

This petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant

¶44

No.2 seeking following reliefs:

¶45

"a. Call for the records.

¶46

b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable Writ, Order or direction as the case may be to

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

quash Common Order passed on the Application on IA No.XXI and XXII under Section 151 of CPC by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegal in O.S.No.93/2016 dated 15.09.2025 under Annexure-G by allowing this Writ Petition, which is necessary in the interest of justice and equity.

¶51

c. Direct the Trial Court to reopen the case and permit the Petitioner to file a written statement within such time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶52

d. Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, which is necessary in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶53

The suit came to be filed in the year 2016 by the plaintiffs for declaration and other consequential benefits against the defendants. However, the petitioner-defendant No.2 has filed an applications in I.A.Nos.XXI and XXIII under Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought to reopen the stage from plaintiff side evidence to filing written statement by condoning the delay in the suit and for permission to file written statement by condoning the delay in the suit. The affidavit was also annexed to the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

said applications. However, the trial Court had dismissed the said applications filed by defendant No.2 by stating the

¶58

reason at paragraph 6 in the impugned order.

¶59

This Court does not find any need or necessity to

¶60

issue notice to the respondents, as no adverse order is passed against him.

¶61

On careful perusal of the affidavit annexed to the applications, there are absolutely no averments with regard to the reasons assigned and cause shown for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that there is an inordinate delay of more than nine years and two months by considering the casual approach that has been met by defendant No.1 and the careless drafting of all these aspects. Therefore, the trial Court has dismissed the said applications, which is questioned before this Court.

¶62

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

At this stage, it is relevant to extract the

¶65

observations at paras 26, 28(28.1 to 28.8) and 30 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Legal Representatives and Others v/s Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 12 Supreme Court

¶66

Cases 336 , which reads as under:

¶67

“26. It would be beneficial to quote para 12 of the aforesaid decision in Basawaraj Case which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands. Para 12 reads as under:

¶68

“12. It is a settled legal proposition that law

¶69

of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute of so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 'A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.' The statutory provision may cause hardship or

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that "inconvenience is not" a deceive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute."

¶74

28. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, has aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that

¶75

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;

¶76

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;

¶77

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;

¶78

28.4. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice oriented approach or cause of

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

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;

¶83

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;

¶84

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;

¶85

28.7: Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay and

¶86

28.8. Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been

¶87

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:50523 WP No. 32481 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.

¶91

30. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in somewhat similar situation, delay in filing appeal for the enhancement of compensation had been condoned by this Court. He placed reliance upon Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana. In this case, delay in filing appeal was condoned as in other appeals compensation awarded at Rs.200 per sq yd was upheld and the proposed appellants were also held entitled to the same benefit of compensation at Rs.200 per sq yd instead of Rs.101 per sq yd as awarded but with the rider that they will not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in approaching the High Court."

¶92

Under the circumstance, I do not find any good

¶93

ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned

¶94

order passed by the trial Court, as no explanation is provided by the petitioner with regard to bona fide , sufficient cause or satisfactory explanation. Therefore, this order does not call for interference.

¶95