CR-6601-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH Yash Pal Singh Kehar Singh and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta MANDEEP PANNU 1. Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order dated 04.09.2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequentially, the firs rejected as time- 2. The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learn counter-claim of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed. The petit advanced age i.e. 72 years infirmity he was unable to contact his p remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in the Execution Petition on appeal on 05.08. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order 2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequentially, the first appeal filed by the petitioner on -barred. The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur and the claim of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed. The petit advanced age i.e. 72 years and suffers from multiple ailments infirmity he was unable to contact his previous counsel and, consequently, remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in the Execution Petition on 22.07.2025. Thereupon he took steps 05.08.2025, though the appeal was delayed by 235 days. The learned -1- OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6601-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 22.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order 2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed t appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2025 was The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated ed Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur and the claim of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed. The petitioner is a man of and suffers from multiple ailments. On account of his revious counsel and, consequently, remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in hereupon he took steps and filed the first 2025, though the appeal was delayed by 235 days. The learned - Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order 2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed 2025 was The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated ed Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur and the ioner is a man of account of his revious counsel and, consequently, remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in and filed the first 2025, though the appeal was delayed by 235 days. The learned TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6601-2025 (O&M) lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the ground that the explanation was not satisfactory and observed that there seven co-defendants who were equally affected and yet did not take steps lower Court further relied upon the principle in the ratio of the d of State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand (2019) 2 ACJ 256 (SC) of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court that the delay w contemplated in the authorities incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once he received the execution summons. a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be condoned subject to such terms as this Court costs to meet any prejudice caused to the respondents. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic and equitable grounds is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party would suffer prejud guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical (O&M) lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the ground that the explanation was not satisfactory and observed that there defendants who were equally affected and yet did not take steps lower Court further relied upon the principle in the ratio of the d State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand 256 (SC) cited by the respondent, of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court that the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence in the sense contemplated in the authorities. Rather it arose out of the petitioner’s genuine incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once received the execution summons. It was further urged that the right of appeal is a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be condoned subject to such terms as this Court may deem fit, including imposition of costs to meet any prejudice caused to the respondents. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic itable grounds. The settled approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party would suffer prejudice which cannot be compensated by costs. Applying these guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical -2- lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the ground that the explanation was not satisfactory and observed that there were defendants who were equally affected and yet did not take steps. T lower Court further relied upon the principle in the ratio of the decision in the case State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand cited by the respondent, which holds that mere negligence of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court as neither intentional nor due to negligence in the sense ather it arose out of the petitioner’s genuine incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once t was further urged that the right of appeal is a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be may deem fit, including imposition of costs to meet any prejudice caused to the respondents. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic he settled approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party ice which cannot be compensated by costs. Applying these guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical - lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the were . The ecision in the case State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand which holds that mere negligence of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court as neither intentional nor due to negligence in the sense ather it arose out of the petitioner’s genuine incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once t was further urged that the right of appeal is a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be may deem fit, including imposition of I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic he settled approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party ice which cannot be compensated by costs. Applying these guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6601-2025 (O&M) disabilities he avers are circumstanc case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the respondents in Gopi Chand delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory explanation and the a that due to infirmity he could not manage his legal affairs lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. 5. Further, though it is true other co that fact alone does not render the petitioner’s ex individual circumstances and capacity to act differ and must own merits. The presence of co establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, though sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate suppression. In justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be extinguished by a rigid application of limitation ends of justice favour foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the inconvenience caused, and as a costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondents. (O&M) disabilities he avers are circumstances which materially distinguish the present case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the Gopi Chand’s case (supra) is distinguishable on facts. T delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory explanation and the appellant could have taken steps, that due to infirmity he could not manage his legal affairs lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. Further, though it is true other co-defendants were similarly affected, that fact alone does not render the petitioner’s ex individual circumstances and capacity to act differ and must he presence of co-defendants who did not act does not automatically establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, gh sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate the balance of convenience and in the interest of doing substantial justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be extinguished by a rigid application of limitation ends of justice favour trial of real controversies on merit rather than their being foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the inconvenience caused, and as a condition for condonation, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondents. -3- es which materially distinguish the present case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the distinguishable on facts. There the delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory ppellant could have taken steps, here the petitioner explains that due to infirmity he could not manage his legal affairs or contact his previous lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. defendants were similarly affected, that fact alone does not render the petitioner’s explanation inherently improbable, individual circumstances and capacity to act differ and must be assessed on their defendants who did not act does not automatically establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, gh sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate the balance of convenience and in the interest of doing substantial justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be extinguished by a rigid application of limitation where a plausible cause exists, t trial of real controversies on merit rather than their being foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the condition for condonation, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondents. - es which materially distinguish the present case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the here the delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory here the petitioner explains or contact his previous lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. defendants were similarly affected, able, be assessed on their defendants who did not act does not automatically establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, gh sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate the balance of convenience and in the interest of doing substantial justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be where a plausible cause exists, the trial of real controversies on merit rather than their being foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the condition for condonation, the petitioner shall pay TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6601-2025 (O&M) 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated extent it dismissed the application for condonation of delay, th in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2025 is ordered to be restored and admitted for hearing on merits petitioner shall deposit the sum of Rs.10,000 as costs with the Registry Court within four weeks from the date of respondents, in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as restored. 7. The present revision petition is allowed in the above 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 22, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) Accordingly, the impugned order dated extent it dismissed the application for condonation of delay, th in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner 2025 is ordered to be restored and admitted for hearing on merits petitioner shall deposit the sum of Rs.10,000 as costs with the Registry Court within four weeks from the date of passing of in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as The present revision petition is allowed in the above Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 is set aside to the extent it dismissed the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 235 days in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner 2025 is ordered to be restored and admitted for hearing on merits. T petitioner shall deposit the sum of Rs.10,000 as costs with the Registry of this passing of this order for being paid to the in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as The present revision petition is allowed in the above-said terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - 2025 is set aside to the e delay of 235 days in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner . The of this this order for being paid to the in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document