Law cannot help those sleeping for a long time: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru:

Refusing to condone a delay of ten years in filing a case, the High Court has said that law cannot help those who are sleeping for a very long time. A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal in their judgment dismissed an appeal filed by a farmer from Mysuru ten years later. “It can only be said that the law will help those who are vigilant and diligent and certainly not to those who are sleeping for years together,” the Division Bench said. H Somashekar from Mysuru had lost a case in 2012 against the Department of Revenue and Thasildar of Srirangapatna taluk.

He approached the High Court against this in 2022 which was heard by a single judge bench. The single-judge bench dismissed his petition on grounds of delay. He approached the Division Bench of the HC after a delay of 199 days. The Division Bench condoned the delay of 199 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and heard his appeal. The Division Bench however found that the singlejudge bench had rightly dismissed his petition for a delay of ten years.

“Perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reflects the lethargic approach of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the order passed in the year 2012 by filing writ petition in the year 2022. There were absolutely no justifiable reasons coming forth before the learned Single Judge to explain the inordinate delay caused in filing the petition in this Court,” the HC said.

Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench noted the arguments made by the counsel for Somashekar, “Learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to submit that the authorities of the State Government failed in their duty by only making bald allegations against the respondent authorities. There is absolutely no material to show why the petitioner waited for such a long period. Interestingly enough in paragraph 2 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is stated that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings initially and then remained absent.”