IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 104 RSA-57-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.05.2026 Haryana Urban Development Authority (now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran), Faridabad …..Appellant Vs. Basant Kumar Jhamb and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant–appellant is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The suit for declara'on with consequen'al relief of permanent injunc'on filed by the plain'ffs–respondents was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 30.11.2010. The appeal preferred by the defendant–appellant came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 11.02.2014, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 2. The present appeal has been filed in March, 2019 along with an applica'on bearing No. CM-208-C-2020 under Sec'on 5 of the Limita'on Act, seeking condona'on of delay of 1772 days, which is nearly five years. 3. As per the averments made in the applica'on, it is stated that a8er dismissal of the appeal on 11.02.2014, the cer'fied copy of the judgment was supplied to the panel counsel for filing the present appeal. It is further averred that the appeal was ini'ally filed and assigned a diary number, however, certain objec'ons were raised by the Registry on NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-57-2020 (O&M) 31.05.2014 and the same was not re-filed. It is then stated that the ma:er came to the no'ce of the appellant only upon receipt of a complaint dated 11.10.2017 from the office of the Chief Minister, Haryana, regarding restora'on of the booth in dispute. Therea8er, inquiries were conducted, a new counsel was engaged, but the earlier appeal could not be traced and eventually the present appeal has been filed a8er obtaining fresh cer'fied copies, resul'ng in delay of 1772 days. The applica'on is supported by affidavit and an addi'onal affidavit has also been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. 5. At the outset, it needs to be no'ced that the delay sought to be condoned is inordinate. The law is well se:led that though the expression “sufficient cause” under Sec'on 5 of the Limita'on Act is to be construed liberally, such liberal approach cannot be extended to cases of gross negligence, inac'on or lack of bona fides. The applicant is required to explain the delay in a reasonable and sa'sfactory manner covering the en're period of delay. 6. In the present case, the explana'on furnished is wholly vague and unsa'sfactory. There is no disclosure as to which counsel was engaged in the year 2014 to file the appeal, nor is there any explana'on as to the nature of objec'ons raised by the Registry. More importantly, there is complete silence as to what steps were taken by the appellant from 31.05.2014, when the objec'ons were allegedly raised, 'll 11.10.2017, when the complaint was received. The period of more than three years remains en'rely unexplained. 7. Even therea8er, the delay from October, 2017 'll filing of the present appeal in March, 2019 has also not been sa'sfactorily explained. The plea that the earlier appeal could not be traced does not cons'tute a sufficient ground, par'cularly when no details of efforts made to trace the Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-57-2020 (O&M) file or to pursue the ma:er diligently have been placed on record. 8. It is equally se:led that merely a:ribu'ng lapse to counsel, without furnishing necessary par'culars and without demonstra'ng due diligence on the part of the li'gant, cannot be accepted as a valid ground for condona'on of such an enormous delay. The appellant, being a public authority, was expected to act with greater promp'tude and vigilance. 9. The averments made in the applica'on as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof do not disclose any sufficient cause within the meaning of Sec'on 5 of the Limita'on Act. The explana'on lacks bona fides and does not inspire confidence. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applica'on for condona'on of delay of 1772 days is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. As a consequence thereof, the present Regular Second Appeal, being barred by limita'on, cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Nee'ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.06 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document