TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion with regard to suit property. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Against it, Plaintiffs preferred R.F.A. No. 1476 of 2005 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, which came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on 15.7.2008. The relevant operative part of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow: 10. Liberty is reserved to the Plaintiffs representing the branch of S. Munuswamyraju to approach the Bangalore Development Authority for reconveyance of site No. 777 and Defendants 1(a) to (g) in respect of site No. 777A. As per the request of S. Narasaraju the then CITB re-conveyed the site No. 290A in favour of his daughter the 4th Defendant herein. The Plaintiffs and other Defendants cannot have any right in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Limitation Act, 1963, praying therein that delay may be condoned and Review Petition be heard on merits. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that none of the Respondents herein had opposed the said prayer of the Appellants seeking condonation of delay as they had not filed any counter affidavit to the affidavit filed by the Appellants in support of their interlocutory application. 7. However, still learned Single Judge not only proceeded to dismiss Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2008 filed by the Appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but also casually touched the merits of the matter and said that no case has been made out to entertain the Review Petition. 8. It is against this order, the Appellants are before us.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd even the merits have been touched, for which no arguments had been advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. 12. Such a practice to be adopted by courts, while deciding Application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, especially while rejecting the same and yet touching the merits of the matter has been deprecated by this Court. [See: 2007(5) SCALE 30 S.V. Matha Prasad v. Lalchand Meghraj and Ors.]. This Court has given the following direction to be followed, which reads as thus: 5..... By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has not only condoned the delay but taken a decision on merits as well. We are of the opinion that the second exercise was not justified as the only issue before the Divisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tters should be heard on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice at the threshold. Since sufficient cause has not been defined, thus, the courts are left to exercise a discretion to come to the conclusion whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. The only guiding principle to be seen is whether a party has acted with reasonable diligence and had not been negligent and callous in the prosecution of the matter. In the instant case, we find that Appellants have shown sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay and same has been explained satisfactorily. 19. Thus, impugned order is hereby set aside and quashed. As a necessary consequence thereof, the matter is to be remitted to the learned Single Judge so that it ....