2025:UHC:11061 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.183 of 2024 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellant. 2. The present Appeal From Order has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Dehradun, whereby the appellant’s application for condonation of delay dated 04.05.2023, the application for setting aside abatement dated 04.05.2023 and the substitution application dated 04.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No.135 of 2016 came to be rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that ever since the COVID-19 pandemic, the health of the appellant/ defendant remained precarious, due to which he could not remain in regular touch with his counsel and, consequently, the factum of death of respondent no.1/ plaintiff in September, 2022 did not come to his knowledge. It is argued that only in the last week of April, 2023, when the appellant contacted his counsel, he was informed about the death of respondent no.1, whereafter the particulars of the legal heirs were collected and, without any further avoidable delay, the delay condonation application, application for setting aside abatement, and substitution application were filed in May, 2023. 4. Having considered the submissions 2025:UHC:11061 and perused the material on record, this Court is satisfied that the delay, sufficiently explained by the appellant’s ill health during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and his bona fide ignorance of the death of respondent no.1, constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123. The Supreme Court has emphasized that length of delay is not material; what matters is the acceptability of the explanation offered. 5. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court finds that the delay of a few months in moving the applications was neither deliberate nor motivated by malice. The explanation offered being bona fide and reasonable, the rejection of the appellant’s applications by the court below cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the Appeal From Order is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No.135 of 2016 is set aside. The appellant’s application for condonation of delay dated 04.05.2023, the application for setting aside abatement dated 04.05.2023, and the substitution application dated 04.05.2023 are allowed. The delay in filing the said applications is condoned, the abatement is set aside, and the legal heirs of respondent no.1 are taken on record as respondents in the pending Civil Appeal. The learned Appellate Court is directed to restore Civil Appeal No.135 of 2016 to its original number and to proceed to decide the same on merits, in 2025:UHC:11061 accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 7. The Appeal is allowed with costs quantified at ₹15,000/-, payable by the appellant to the legal heirs of respondent no.1, within four weeks. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 11.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20d ddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98 7446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.12.11 17:44:08 +05'30'