RSA-2452-2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2452-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.05.2026 Kalawa$ and others ...Appellants Versus Ram Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plain$ffs-appellants filed a suit for declara$on challenging the transfer of plot No.105 measuring 50 square yards situated at Jagjivan Nagar, Hisar in favour of defendant No.1 and subsequent sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2. The said suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014. The appeal preferred by the plain$ffs-appellants was also dismissed by the learned Addi$onal District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid concurrent findings, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed alongwith applica$on bearing CM-8243-C-2023 under Sec$on 151 CPC seeking condona$on of delay of 1118 days in refiling the appeal. 3. In the applica$on seeking condona$on of delay, it has been pleaded that though the appeal had ini$ally been filed within limita$on, certain objec$ons were raised by the Registry on 26/28.05.2018. It is stated that the clerk of the counsel had taken the file from the objec$on branch but inadvertently placed the same in another decided brief and failed to YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2452-2023 (O&M) [2] inform the counsel regarding the objec$ons. It is further averred that the said clerk leB the office in September 2018 and thereaBer, when a new clerk was appointed in November 2018 and the status of the case was checked, the objec$ons came to no$ce. It is pleaded that thereaBer the brief was traced and in the meanwhile Covid-19 pandemic also intervened, resul$ng in delay of 1118 days in refiling the appeal. 4. ABer hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the averments made in the applica$on, this Court finds no sufficient ground to condone the enormous delay of 1118 days in refiling the appeal. 5. The explana$on furnished by the appellants is vague, casual and wholly unsubstan$ated. Neither the name of the earlier clerk, who allegedly misplaced the brief, has been disclosed nor any par$culars regarding the alleged tracing of the file have been men$oned. Even the name of the subsequently appointed clerk, who allegedly checked the status of the case, has not been disclosed. No affidavit of either clerk has been placed on record in support of the averments made in the applica$on. The en$re explana$on appears to be a bald and generalized statement lacking material par$culars. Mere aEribu$on of negligence to a clerk, without any suppor$ng material, cannot cons$tute sufficient cause within the meaning of law, par$cularly when the delay involved is of more than three years. 6. It is well seEled that though the expression “sufficient cause” deserves liberal interpreta$on, yet a party seeking condona$on of enormous delay is required to furnish a plausible, bona fide and convincing explana$on covering the en$re period of delay. A li$gant cannot seek condona$on as a maEer of right by merely seHng up a rou$ne plea of misplaced file or lapse on the part of counsel’s clerk. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2452-2023 (O&M) [3] 7. The conduct of the appellants also reflects complete lack of diligence. Even according to their own showing, objec$ons had been raised in May 2018, whereas the appeal came to be refiled aBer more than three years. Except making a bald reference to the Covid-19 pandemic, no explana$on whatsoever has been furnished regarding the steps taken by the appellants during the interregnum period. 8. This Court is, therefore, sa$sfied that the appellants have failed to make out any sufficient cause to jus$fy condona$on of such an inordinate delay in refiling the appeal. Consequently, CM-8243-C-2023 seeking condona$on of delay in refiling the appeal is dismissed. 9. On Merits : Even otherwise, this Court has examined the maEer on merits as well and finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 10. The learned first Appellate Court, upon detailed apprecia$on of evidence, has categorically held that the plain$ffs failed to prove their allega$ons of fraud and forgery against defendant No.1. The Court no$ced that the applica$ons and affidavits rela$ng to transfer of property both in favour of the plain$ffs as well as subsequently in favour of defendant No.1 were executed on the same date i.e. 19.09.2005. 11. The plea raised by the appellants regarding forged signatures of appellant No.3 was also disbelieved in view of the report of handwri$ng and fingerprint expert examined by the defendants, who opined that the disputed and admiEed signatures had been made by the same person. The plain$ffs failed to lead any cogent evidence in rebuEal. 12. The learned Appellate Court further no$ced that appellant No.1 never entered the witness box to substan$ate the plea that she was a pardanashin lady or that her signatures had been obtained on blank papers. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2452-2023 (O&M) [4] Similarly, no evidence was produced to establish that appellant No.2 was a minor at the relevant $me. 13. The Courts below also concurrently held that the suit ins$tuted by the plain$ffs in the year 2010 challenging transfer effected in the year 2005 was barred by limita$on. 14. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of fact based upon proper apprecia$on of oral and documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any perversity, illegality or material misreading of evidence giving rise to any substan$al ques$on of law. 15. The jurisdic$on of this Court under Sec$on 100 CPC is confined only to substan$al ques$ons of law. Re-apprecia$on of evidence and interference with concurrent findings of fact is impermissible unless the findings are shown to be perverse or contrary to law. No such circumstance exists in the present case. 16. Consequently, the applica$on seeking condona$on of delay in refiling as well as the Regular Second Appeal are both dismissed. 17. Pending miscellaneous applica$on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.05.13 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document