Shree Venkateswara Enterprises Vs Sri. Jeevan Morey R — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shree Venkateswara Enterprises Vs Sri. Jeevan Morey R — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision petition disposed of: the order of the Appellate Court (I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dated 02.08.2025, in Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025) set aside; delay of 94 days in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoned; Appellate Court directed to decide the appeal on merits within one month from 30.06.2026; Registry directed to send back the SCR records forthwith; parties directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 30.06.2026 without expecting further notice.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 94 days in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025 ought to be condoned.

Court's answer

Taking into note that the delay was only 94 days, that reasons were assigned in the affidavit (though no supporting documents were produced), and that the appeal was not decided on merits, the matter was a clear case for remitting it to be considered on merits by condoning the delay of 94 days.

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the Appellate Court is set aside and the delay of 94 days in filing the application is condoned.

Key takeaways

The Appellate Court is directed to consider the matter on merits and to dispose of the appeal within one month from 30.06.2026.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 1626 of 2025) under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. (also described as filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 BNSS) against the order dated 02.08.2025 of the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No. 87/2025, by which IA No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 94-day delay was dismissed. Held: although the affidavit assigning reasons (severe throat infection with cold and cough symptoms, stated to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic) was unsupported by treatment documents, the delay being only 94 days and the appeal not having been decided on merits, it was a clear case for remitting the matter to be considered on merits by condoning the delay. The Appellate Court's order was set aside, the delay of 94 days was condoned, and the Appellate Court was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within one month from 30.06.2026; the Registry was directed to send back the SCR records forthwith and the parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 30.06.2026.

NC: 2026:KHC:29010 CRL.RP No. 1626 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1626 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SHREE VENKATESWARA ENTERPRISES, SHREE VENKATESWARA, OFFICE AT NO.58, 5^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. N. PRABHAKARA CHARI, S/O N. VENKARAMANA ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. N. PRABHAKARA CHARI, S/O N. VENKARAMANA ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.297/A, 4^th CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, RAMANJANEYANAGARA, CHIKKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 061.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MUNIRAJU., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. JEEVAN MOREY R, S/O LATE A.G. RAMAKRISHNOJI RAO,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29010 CRL.RP No. 1626 of 2025

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.274, PATTANAGERE MAIN ROAD, KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H.S., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED 02/08/2025 BY THE HONBLE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 87/2025, AND DIRECT TO 1ST APPELLATE TO RECONSIDER THE CRIMINAL APPEAL BY GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PETITIONER TO PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTS ON DELAY OF 94DAYS UNDER APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Muniraju, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri. Kiran Kumar H.S., learned counsel for the respondent.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29010 CRL.RP No. 1626 of 2025

HC-KAR

The Appellate Court dismissed IA No.1 before the

Trial Court filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and there was

a delay of 94 days in filing the application. It is stated in the application that he was suffering from severe throat infection and related symptoms of cold and cough. The same was affected by COVID-19 pandemic. But Trial Court made an observation that the deponent for the best reasons not mentioned the period of his ill-health, nor he has produced any document for having taken treatment for his said ill-health and hence, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no reasons are made ought to condone the delay.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also would submit that the delay was not explained.

However, taking into note of delay only for 94 days and the reasons are assigned in the affidavit but not produced any document, the appeal was not decided on merits, it is a clear case for remitting the matter to consider the same on merits by condoning the delay of 94 days. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29010 CRL.RP No. 1626 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The criminal revision petition is disposed of .

(ii) The order passed by the Appellate Court is set aside and delay of 94 days in filing the application is condoned.

(iii) The Appellate Court is directed to consider the matter on merits and to dispose the appeal within one month from 30.06.2026.

(iv) The Registry is directed to send back the records of SCR forthwith to enable the Appellate Court to take up the matter without fail on 30.06.2026.

(v) The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 30.06.2026 without fail, without expecting any further notice, and to assist the Appellate Court in deciding the matter on its merits within the time-bound period stipulated above.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

BH : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29