Karnataka High Court
Indo Asian Academic Education Trust vs Sai Advertisers on 22 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37988
RFA No. 1074 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1074 OF 2025 (MON)
BETWEEN:
1. INDO ASIAN ACADEMIC EDUCATION TRUST,
REP. BY ITS PROFESSOR,
SRI. T. EKAMBARAM NAIDU,
FOUNDER CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING TRUSTEE,
NO.10, 4TH 'D' MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT,
II BLOCK, KALYAN NAGARA,
BENGALURU -560 043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RAJAMANI P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAI ADVERTISERS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
Digitally signed by SRI. G. RAVINDRA REDDY,
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH HAVING OFFICE AT NO.74/75,
COURT OF SAI SUSHMA ARCADE,
KARNATAKA PATEL KEMPAIAH LAYOUT,
1ST MAIN, II CROSS,
CHOKKASANDRA, PEENYA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2022
PASSED IN O.S.NO.9412/2015 ON THE FILE OF LXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63),
BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
MONEY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37988
RFA No. 1074 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 9412/2015 dated 21.02.2022 on the file of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the trial Court'). By the said judgment and decree the trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of money and held that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.5,62,493/- as the principal amount along with 9% interest upon the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. Accompanying the appeal is I.A. No. 1/2025 seeking to condone the delay of 1058 days in preferring -3- NC: 2025:KHC:37988 RFA No. 1074 of 2025 HC-KAR the appeal. The reasons assigned to condone the delay is stated at paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 which reads as under:
"3. I further submits that, later the respondent have filed execution proceedings in Ex. 676/2024 to enforce the decree and judgment passed on the file of O.S.9412/2015 on 21/02/2022 to pay decreetal amount. After receiving the execution proceedings notice, I contacted my counsel through my office staff. The respondent enterprises never approaches me in this regard, because of ill health and my other work load, I also could not concentrate my mind on this issue. Moreso there is no any fault from our side.
4. I further submits that, the respondent obtaining order in its favour has filed the execution proceedings in execution No.676/2024 after lapse of two years to enforce the order. They have no any right to get balance amount as they have breached contract because of my frequent non-availability in the office my office staff could not give any instruction to my counsel to approach this Hon'ble court. In the above circumstances and the fact, I have got merits of the case if this application is not allowed I will be put to greater hardship and injury, on the other hand if this application is allowed no hardship is -4- NC: 2025:KHC:37988 RFA No. 1074 of 2025 HC-KAR caused to the respondent. Delay in filing the above said appeal is not deliberate or intentional it is due to bonafide reason."
4. As could be seen from the above said paragraphs the affidavit is sworn to by the Founder Chairman and Managing Trustee stating that in his education institution there was work pressure and also due to his ill health he could not concentrate on this case and he had handed over this work to his office staff and his office staff have not followed the Court final order and when his office staff received notice of execution proceedings in Ex.No. 676/2024 they brought to his notice and as such there is delay in preferring the appeal and that delay caused in preferring the appeal is not deliberate or intentional.
5. For the purpose of condonation of delay in filing of an appeal or application beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a 'sufficient cause' that resulted in such delay for both prescribed period of limitation as well as the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:37988 RFA No. 1074 of 2025 HC-KAR period after the expiry of limitation, upto the actual date of filing such appeal or application. In other words, explanation has to be given for the entire duration from the date when the limitation began to tick, until the date of actual filing. The appellant has filed I.A. No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 1058 days in filing the present appeal.
6. The reasons assigned are vague and general in nature. The appellant has merely stated that the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances, but no cogent explanation is forthcoming as to how and why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others1 (Shivamma), has reiterated that administrative lethargy or vague explanation can never be accepted as grounds for condoning the delay. The Apex Court, while examining Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the conflicting 1 Civil Appeal No.11794/2025 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:37988 RFA No. 1074 of 2025 HC-KAR judicial views on 'within such period', held that 'within such period' covers both the prescribed limitation period and the period thereafter till actual filing. Hence, explanation must extend to the entire continuum. Reiterated that 'sufficient cause' requires 'absence of negligence, inaction or malafides'. The Apex Court observed that condonation is an exception, not the rule, discretion must be exercised judicially, not mechanically. Applying this principle, the explanation offered by the appellant falls short of the requirement of law and is therefore unacceptable.
7. The reasons assigned are not sufficient enough to condone the inordinate delay of 1058 days in preferring the appeal and the delay in preferring appeal cannot be condoned.
8. To see that the appellant is not deprived of his right on the ground of technicalities, this Court has perused the judgment and decree. Before the trial Court the defendant contested the suit and the trial Court after -7- NC: 2025:KHC:37988 RFA No. 1074 of 2025 HC-KAR consideration has held that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery. There is no error, illegality or perversity committed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the appeal is also devoid of merits. Hence, the points framed for consideration are answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is hereby dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits.
ii. I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 1058 days in preferring the appeal is hereby rejected, as the appellant has failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay.
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41