AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CM APPL. 62283/2025 (for condonation of delay in filing) in RSA 157/2025
The present application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), seeking condonation of delay of 2023 days in filing the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th November, 2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in RCA/DJ No. 358/2016.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had initially filed the second appeal on 16th March, 2020. However, the said appeal could not be effectively pursued and remained under defects on account of the unfortunate demise of Mr. Kohli of SAV Law Associates, the law firm representing the appellant, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the appellant was not updated about the status of the appeal and became aware of the same only upon receipt of notice dated 05th July, 2025, in the Execution Proceedings. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the present application is without any merits and it is liable to be dismissed as the appellant has failed to disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of unreasonable delay in filing the appeal.
Heard. Record perused.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15th November, 2019. By way of the present application, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 2023 days in filing the appeal.
The principles of law governing condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), reported as 2024 INSC 286 and decided on 06th April, 2026. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are as under:
“23.In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.
24.It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands.
“12.It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.”
25.This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under:
“15.The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” (emphasis supplied)
26.On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i)Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii)A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii)The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv)In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v)Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi)Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii)Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii)Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.”
In the present case, the appellant seeks to explain the delay on the ground that the appeal, which was initially filed on 16th March, 2020, could not be pursued on account of the mis-communication by the previous Counsel regarding the status of the appeal. However, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had made any efforts to ascertain the status of the appeal or had taken any sincere steps to ensure that the defects in the initially filed appeal were cured and the appeal was duly pursued. There is also no material placed on record to establish any communication between the appellant and the concerned law firm during the relevant period. The appellant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the status of that appeal. It shows absolute negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant. The appellant has failed to show adequate and enough reason to explain the delay of 2023 days from the date of the passing of the judgment and the date of filing of the present appeal. This is a case demonstrating absolute lack of due diligence. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. There is no merit in the present application, which is hereby dismissed.
RSA 157/2025 & CM APPL. 62282/2025
In view of the dismissal of the application bearing CM APPL. 62283/2025, the present Regular Second Appeal, along with the pending application (s) stands dismissed.