IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CRP NO.8 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. Shri B. Narayan Rao Son of late K. Vasudeva Rao Aged about 85 years Residing at Sathya Sai Grama Muddenahalli, Chikkaballapur District 574 235.
2. Shri K. Sanjeeva Shetty Son of late K.Katappa Shetty Aged about 81 years Residing at Sathya Sai Vihar, Alike, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada – 574 235.
3. Shri K. Vasantraj Son of late K.Narayana Bhat, Aged about 68 years Residing at Sathya Sai Grama Muddenahalli,Chikkaballapur District – 574 235.
4. Shri Mahendra S. Hegde Son of late Sripada S.Hegde, Aged about 60 years Residing at Sathya Sai Vihar, Alike, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada – 574 235.
5. Shri B. Narasimha Murthy Son of late B.N. Narasimhaiah, Aged about 70 years Residing at Sathya Sai Grama Muddenahalli,Chikkaballapur District – 574 235.
6. Shri Madhusudhan Naidu Son of Late D.Maheshwar Rao Naidu, Aged about 38 years Residing at Sathya Sai Grama Muddenahalli, Chikkaballapur District – 574 235.
7. Shri R. K. Subramani Son of R.T. Kumar Aged about 47 years Residing at sathya sai grama Muddenahalli, Chikkaballapur District - 574235.
8. Shri H. Ramanand Son of Late Narasimha Nayak, Aged about 73 years Residing at Sathya Sai Vihar, Alike, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada – 574 235. …Petitioners (By Sri Udita Ramesh, Advocate) And:
1. Shri. U Gangadhar Bhat Son of late Subbanna Bhat Aged about 86 years Residing at Sathya Sai Vihar, Alike, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada – 574 235.
2. Shri K S Krishna Bhat Son of Late Sham Bhat Aged about 84 years Residing at Sathya Sai Vihar, Alike, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada – 574 235.
3. Shri S. Chandrashekara Bhat Son of Krishna Bhat Aged about 56 years Residing at Sathya Sai Vihar, Alike, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada – 574 235.
4. Shri S. S. Naganand Son of Late S.G.Sundaraswamy, Aged about 59 years Residing at No.50, ‘Naman’ 2nd Cross, Achaiah Layout, RMV Extension, Bangalore 560 080. …Respondents (By Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, Adv. For R1 to R3, Sri K.G.Raghavan, Sr. Counsel for Sri Madhukar Deshpande, Adv. for R4.) **** This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Sec.115 of CPC., against the order dated 19.4.2017 passed on I.A. no.X in O.S. No.12/2017 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, rejecting the I.A.No.X filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Rule 11(d) r/w Order II Rule 2 of CPC., for rejection of plaint.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This I.A.No.1/2018 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition.
2. In support of I.A.No.1/2018, petitioner No.1 has filed affidavit contending that there were certain other observations made by the Court which is not within the scope of order related to interim application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. As such, the petitioners were not sure about nature and scope of the said order. Since the respondents were playing spoil sport by illegally denying the rightful entitlement of the petitioners in Muddenahalli campus as there was only one FCRA bank account. The priority was to enforce the directions of the Court below as the respondents were holding the petitioners’ Muddenahalli campus at ransom.
3. The possibility of settlement was one of the reasons for not challenging the impugned order dated 19.4.2017. The delay was on account of bonafide reasons and the same was not intentional.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has filed the objections denying the contents of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2018.
5. Further, it is submitted that there were no settlement talks between the petitioners and respondents as the same cannot be a reason for condonation of delay. After passing of the order dated 19.4.2017, other interim applications were heard and orders were passed by the trial Court against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed eight Miscellaneous First Appeals before this Court and they are still pending.
6. While contesting the suit in O.S.No.12/2017, the petitioners were in regular contact with the legal counsel. As such, they cannot claim that they were unable to give instructions to the advocate. On 21.01.2017, the petitioners passed resolution removing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 as Trustees and instituted the suit in O.S.No.,12/2017 for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. On 19.4.2017, the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.10 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint of the plaintiffs.
7. There are no valid grounds to condone the delay.
Hence, the said application deserves to be rejected.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously contend that the delay was on account of three grounds namely, possibility of settlement, inherent ambiguity in orders passed by the trial Court and the petitioners’ focus was to get the foreign funds to run the educational institutions. As such, they were involved in filing the application before the concerned authority and Courts. In addition, they did not know about the legal position whether Revision Petition has to be filed or appeal has to be preferred as there is an ambiguity in the orders passed by the trial Court.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that subsequent to the order dated 19.4.2017 on I.A. No.10 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, the trial Court has heard other I.A.s’ and the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondents which was challenged by the petitioners in filing the Miscellaneous First Appeals before this Court. Thus, the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding settlement, inherent ambiguity in the order passed by the trial Court are not at all tenable.
10. In view of the rival contentions, the only question that arises for consideration whether there are valid reasons for condonation of delay.
11. Generally, the Courts are liberal in condoning the delay whenever there is a proper explanation and justification for condonation of delay.
12. In a decision reported in the case of Esha Bhataacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others reported in (2013) SCC 649, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued the general principles regarding condonation of delay wherein it is held as under:
“There is a distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration or few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.”
13. In the present application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated about the circumstances which caused the delay in filing the petition.
(i) The first reason assigned for condonation of delay is that regarding possibility of settlement but no materials are placed on record to show that there was a chance of settlement or settlement talks were held between the parties by entering into agreement or by making any other arrangements in this regard.
(ii) The second reason is regarding the inherent ambiguity in the impugned order passed on I.A. led to confusion about challenging the same by filing Civil Revision Petition on MFA under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. It is submitted that, the petitioners were unable to understand the legal position as to whether Revision Petition has to be filed or MFA. The plea of lack of knowledge in the present case really lacks bonafides. The law of limitation fixes a life span for seeking legal remedy. Time is precious and the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties.
(iii) The last contention of the petitioners is that they were busy in getting the foreign funds. Hence, they were unable to file the application before the concerned authorities. Lack of bonafides equitable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant under relevant fact. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence or relevant facts are to be taken into consideration. In the statement of objections, it is mentioned that the petitioners have preferred appeals in MFA Nos. 8470/2017 and 8472- 8478/2017. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners were in constant touch with their counsel. Under these circumstances, the explanation offered by the petitioners is not justified.
14. For the foregoing reasons, there are no valid grounds to condone the delay. Hence, I.A.No.1/2018 is rejected. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition also stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD CT-HR