The court rejects the application for condonation of a 444-day delay in appeal filing, citing misleading claims and evidence of proper notice service.
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by the Secretary of the Public Works Department and others, citing a lack of valid reasons for a 444-day delay in filing the appeal. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, ruled against condoning the delay under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The appellants contended that they were unaware of the judgment and decree dated September 11, 2024, claiming that summons were not personally served. They asserted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a lack of personal service of summons, which led to their absence in contesting the case on its merits.
However, the court found these assertions misleading and inaccurate. The respondent's counsel presented evidence showing that the summons and notices were duly served multiple times. The court records revealed that the defendants were represented during trial proceedings on several occasions. The matter was listed before the Senior Civil Judge on numerous dates, with the parties producing evidence and witnesses being cross-examined.
The court observed that the appellants had been adequately notified about the proceedings, with notices being issued repeatedly and served. Despite this, the defendants failed to appear consistently, leading to ex parte proceedings at certain stages.
The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate and truthful representations in affidavits supporting applications for condonation of delay. The court noted that the appellants' claims of not being served were unsupported by the court records, which clearly indicated proper service and representation during key stages of the trial.
The Karnataka High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's stance on ensuring procedural diligence and accountability in legal proceedings. The dismissal of the appeal serves as a reminder of the importance of timely actions and honest representations in the judicial process.
Bottom line:-
An application seeking condonation of inordinate delay in filing an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, cannot be allowed when the appellants fail to provide valid and accurate reasons for the delay, and the records reveal that the summons/notices were duly served and the appellants were represented on multiple occasions during the trial proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 13(1A), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order IX, Rule 7
Secretary Public Works Department v. M. Jagannath, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2905688
