IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 117 CM-12864-C-2023 in/and RSA-3592-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:17.02.2026 Gurjot Singh …..Appellant Vs. Sakinder Singh and another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Salana, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plain ff is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by one of the defendants was accepted, and the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2019 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of ₹1,70,000/- was set aside. 2. The appeal is accompanied by applica on No. CM-12864-C- 2023 under Sec on 5 of the Limita on Act seeking condona on of delay of 671 days in filing the present appeal. 3. In the applica on, it is pleaded that due to paucity of funds, the appellant could not approach this Court within the prescribed period of limita on and that the appeal has been filed only a7er arranging the necessary funds. The applica on is supported by the affidavit of the appellant. 4. Having considered the explana on offered, this Court finds no NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-12864-C-2023 in/and RSA-3592-2023 (O&M) -2- sufficient cause made out to condone the delay. 5. It is not disputed that the appellant-plain ff was duly represented by counsel before both the Courts below. The judgment of the first Appellate Court was pronounced on 01.10.2021. The present appeal has been filed a7er a delay of 671 days, which is substan al. Mere asser on of financial constraints, without any par culars or material to substan ate the same, cannot cons tute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Sec on 5 of the Limita on Act. If indeed the appellant was unable to arrange funds, he could have availed the remedy of legal aid through the Legal Services Authori es; or could have appealed as a pauper. No such effort is shown to have been made. The explana on is general and lacks bona fides. 6. The law of limita on is founded upon public policy. While courts adopt a liberal approach in appropriate cases, par cularly where substan ve rights are involved, such liberality cannot extend to condoning inordinate delay in the absence of a cogent and convincing explana on covering the en re period of delay. In the present case, no such sa sfactory explana on is forthcoming. 7. Accordingly, the applica on for condona on of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limita on. 8. Even otherwise, on merits also, the appeal does not warrant interference. 9. The case of the plain ff was that in March 2015, the defendants had borrowed a sum of ₹1,70,000/- from him in the presence of his father and one Madanjit Singh for the marriage of the sister of defendant No.1 and daughter of defendant No.2. The transac on was admiCedly oral. It was alleged that the defendants failed to repay the amount despite legal no ce dated 13.07.2017, compelling the plain ff to NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-12864-C-2023 in/and RSA-3592-2023 (O&M) -3- ins tute the suit. 10. The defendants denied the alleged loan and pleaded that the plain ff and one Sakinder Singh had jointly purchased a plot at Kharar, which was later sold at a lesser value and that due to disputes arising out of that transac on, the present suit had been filed out of grudge. 11. The learned trial Court decreed the suit relying upon the tes monies of PW-1 Jaspal Singh and PW-3 Madanjit Singh. However, the learned first Appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, re-appreciated the en re evidence and recorded detailed findings disbelieving the plain ff’s version. 12. The first Appellate Court no ced material contradic ons in the case of the plain ff. It was admiCed in cross-examina on that a plot at Sunny Enclave, Kharar had been purchased for ₹36 lakhs and sold for ₹30 lakhs prior to the marriage of the daughter of Sakinder Singh. The plain ff admiCed that the marriage of Lovepreet Kaur was solemnized in February 2015, whereas the alleged loan was stated to have been advanced in March 2015 for the purpose of that marriage. The plain ff was unable to state the exact date of the alleged loan and even contradicted himself by sta ng at one stage that the amount was advanced before the marriage. 13. The first Appellate Court further found that there was no documentary evidence whatsoever to support the alleged loan transac on of ₹1,70,000/-. The witnesses examined were either related to the plain ff or otherwise interested, and their tes mony did not inspire confidence. On overall apprecia on of evidence, the first Appellate Court concluded that the plain ff had failed to discharge the burden of proof and that the trial Court had decreed the suit without substan ve corrobora ve evidence. 14. This Court, in exercise of jurisdic on under Sec on 100 CPC, does not re-appreciate evidence unless the findings recorded are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffer from substan al illegality. The NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-12864-C-2023 in/and RSA-3592-2023 (O&M) -4- first Appellate Court has minutely examined the evidence, highlighted inconsistencies and recorded findings of fact supported by the material on record. No perversity or misapplica on of law has been demonstrated. 15. The finding that the plain ff failed to prove advancement of the alleged loan is a pure finding of fact. No substan al ques on of law arises for considera on. 16. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed both on the ground of limita on and on merits. All pending miscellaneous applica on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 17, 2026 Nee ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.19 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document