RSA-3046-2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3046-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Baldev Raj Arora ...Appellant Versus Jagdish Chander Gupta and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Parbeen Kumari, Advocate for Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain6ﬀs-appellant(s) assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 2. The appellants had ins6tuted a suit for possession along with the consequen6al relief of permanent injunc6on in respect of the property in dispute. The said suit came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 03.04.2006. Aggrieved there-against, the appellants preferred a ﬁrst appeal, which too was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012, aﬃrming the ﬁndings recorded by the trial Court. 3. The present Regular Second Appeal has been ins6tuted in September, 2023. The appeal is accompanied by CM-10864-C-2023 under Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act seeking condona6on of delay of 2870 days in ﬁling the appeal, and CM-10861-C-2023 under Sec6on 151 CPC seeking condona6on of delay of 406 days in reﬁling the appeal. 4. In the applica6on seeking condona6on of delay in ﬁling the appeal, it is pleaded that aBer the dismissal of the ﬁrst appeal, the appellants entrusted the relevant papers along with the original ﬁle to a YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3046-2023 (O&M) [2] counsel during his visit to Rohtak for ﬁling the present appeal. According to the appellants, the said counsel assured them that the appeal would be ﬁled within limita6on and that his professional fee would be charged only aBer the appeal was listed before this Court. It is further averred that despite making inquiries from 6me to 6me, no sa6sfactory response was received from the counsel and only in November, 2019 did the appellants come to know that the appeal had not been ﬁled. ThereaBer, cer6ﬁed copies were obtained on 26.11.2019 and the present appeal was ul6mately ﬁled, resul6ng in a delay of 2870 days. 5. In the applica6on seeking condona6on of delay in reﬁling, it is pleaded that though the appeal had ini6ally been presented on 22.07.2020, the Registry raised certain objec6ons and the paper book was returned on 23.06.2022. It is stated that owing to an inadvertent mistake in the oﬃce of the counsel, the ﬁle was placed in the rack containing admiEed maEers and could be traced only while rearranging the oﬃce records, whereaBer the appeal was reﬁled in September, 2023. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 7. The law is well seEled that although the expression "suﬃcient cause" occurring in Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act deserves a liberal construc6on so as to advance substan6al jus6ce, such liberality cannot be extended to condone gross negligence, lack of bona ﬁdes or unexplained inac6on. The applicant is under an obliga6on to furnish a cogent, plausible and sa6sfactory explana6on covering the en6re period of delay. Every day's delay may not require a pedan6c explana6on; nevertheless, the Court must be sa6sﬁed that the party acted with reasonable diligence throughout and that the delay was beyond its control. Mere vague asser6ons or omnibus allega6ons against a counsel, unsupported by par6culars, do not cons6tute YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3046-2023 (O&M) [3] suﬃcient cause. 8. Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, the explana6on furnished by the appellants falls far short of the statutory requirement. The applica6on does not even disclose the name of the counsel to whom the papers were allegedly entrusted. It is conspicuously silent regarding the date on which the documents were handed over, the mode of such entrustment, or any acknowledgment thereof. No aﬃdavit of the concerned counsel has been placed on record to substan6ate the allega6ons levelled against him. Equally absent are the par6culars of the alleged inquiries stated to have been made by the appellants regarding the ﬁling or lis6ng of the appeal. 9. Signiﬁcantly, the applica6on merely states that the appellants "inquired a number of 6mes" from the counsel without specifying when such inquiries were made, by whom, or what response was received. The pleadings are completely silent regarding the steps taken by the appellants during the intervening period of more than seven years. A li6gant pursuing his remedy with due diligence would ordinarily make periodic inquiries regarding the status of his appeal, par6cularly when no communica6on regarding its lis6ng is received for such a long dura6on. The complete absence of any par6culars demonstrates a lack of due diligence rather than circumstances beyond the appellants' control. 10. Even assuming that the appellants came to know in November, 2019 that no appeal had been ﬁled, the subsequent conduct also does not inspire conﬁdence. Though cer6ﬁed copies are stated to have been obtained on 26.11.2019, the appeal was ﬁled only on 22.07.2020. No sa6sfactory explana6on has been furnished for this further delay as well. Thus, the explana6on fails to cover even the period aBer the alleged discovery of the omission. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3046-2023 (O&M) [4] 11. The explana6on oﬀered for condona6on of delay in reﬁling is equally unsa6sfactory. The only reason assigned is that aBer the Registry returned the paper book on 23.06.2022, it was inadvertently kept in the rack containing admiEed maEers in the oﬃce of the counsel and could be located only while rearranging the oﬃce records. Such an explana6on reﬂects nothing but lack of proper oﬃce management and negligence. It is seEled that administra6ve lapses or casual handling of ﬁles in the oﬃce of the counsel, without any excep6onal or unavoidable circumstance, do not cons6tute suﬃcient cause for condoning substan6al delay in reﬁling. 12. The delays involved in the present case are not marginal but substan6al, namely 2870 days in ﬁling the appeal and 406 days in reﬁling it. In the absence of any cogent, speciﬁc and convincing explana6on covering the en6re period of delay, this Court is unable to record the sa6sfac6on contemplated under Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act. Acceptance of such vague and unsubstan6ated explana6ons would defeat the very object of the law of limita6on, which seeks to impart ﬁnality to li6ga6on and ensure certainty in legal proceedings. 13. Consequently, ﬁnding no suﬃcient cause to condone either the delay of 2870 days in ﬁling the appeal or the delay of 406 days in reﬁling the same, CM-10864-C-2023 and CM-10861-C-2023 are dismissed. 14. As a necessary consequence, the Regular Second Appeal, being hopelessly barred by limita6on, also stands dismissed. 16.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.17 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

BALDEV RAJ ARORA v. JAGDISH CHANDER GUPTA AND OTHERS

Judgment text