S. No.5 Regular List ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No.2114/2023 RFA No.13/2023 CM No.2089/2023 GHULAM MOHAMMAD KHAN & ORS …..Appellant(s) Through: Mr.Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate. V/s CHAIRMAN J AND K SPECIFIED WAKAFS AND SPPECIFIED WAKAFS PROPERITIES AND ORS … ..Respondent(s) Through : Mr.Jehangir Dar, GA. Mr. Ruaani Ahmad Baba, Advocate for 1 and 2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 06 05.2025 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order dated 27.12.2021 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Bandipora. 2. It seems that the Appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit against the respondents/defendants before the learned Principal District Judge Bandipora, seeking a declaration that they may be declared as Trustees of Ziyarat Aham-i-Sharief, Bandipora with a further declaration that Trustship of defendants No.6 to 8 be declared as null and void. A mandatory injunction, directing defendants No.1 and 2 to RFA No.13/2023 CM No.2089/2023 CM No.2114/2023 2 | P a g e issue appropriate order in favour of the plaintiffs to receive offerings etc. of the Ziyarat, was also sought with further permanent injunction restraining defendants No.5 to 8 thereto from receiving offerings etc. 3. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.12.2021 held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the subject matter involved in the suit, as the same falls within the jurisdiction of Wakaf Board. Accordingly, the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiffs for its presentation before respondent No.2/defendant No.2. 4. Plaintiffs/appellants have challenged the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court by filing the appeal. However, the appeal has been filed only on 09.02.2023 well beyond the prescribed time of limitation. As per the note of registry the appeal is delayed by 348 days. 5. Alongwith appeal, the appellants have filed the instant application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application it has been submitted that the appellants are rural rustic people and they were under the impression that the suit has been decided in their favour. It has been submitted that after seeking proper legal advice the plaintiffs decided to file the present appeal. On this ground it is being RFA No.13/2023 CM No.2089/2023 CM No.2114/2023 3 | P a g e submitted that there is no intentional delay on part of the appellants in filing the appeal. 6. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply to the application for condonation of delay in which it had been submitted that the appellants were to file appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of CPC within 90 days from the date of passing of the impugned order, but they have slept over the matter and have approached the Court after a gap of about 16 months. It has been submitted that the appellants/applicants have failed to show any sufficient cause which prevented them from filing the appeal within prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. It is clear from the perusal of the record that the appellants have filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 only on 09.02.2023. The period from 27.12.2021 up to 28.02.2022 is not to be taken into consideration while computing the limitation period, because of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ petition (Civil) RFA No.13/2023 CM No.2089/2023 CM No.2114/2023 4 | P a g e No:3 of 2020. Therefore, the appellants were supposed to file the appeal within 90 days from 28.02.2022, meaning thereby that limitation for filing the appeal in the present case expired on 30th of May, 2022, but the present appeal has been filed on 19.02.2023. Thus the appeal has been filed after a delay of 255 days. 9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act vests jurisdiction with the Appellate Court to entertain an appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation, if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, if an appellant satisfies the Appellate Court that because of some sufficient reason he was prevented from preferring the appeal within prescribed period of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned by the Appellate Court. “Sufficient cause” would mean circumstances beyond control of a party that prevented such party from meeting the dead line. Courts generally adopt a liberal approach while interpreting “sufficient cause” to ensure that meritorious cases are not barred by technicalities. 10. The Supreme Court has in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 INSC 286 laid down principles RFA No.13/2023 CM No.2089/2023 CM No.2114/2023 5 | P a g e regarding the law of limitation and condonation of delay. The same are enumerated as under:- (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. 11. 11. From the above analysis of the law it is clear that even though liberal justice oriented approach has to be adopted RFA No.13/2023 CM No.2089/2023 CM No.2114/2023 6 | P a g e while considering a plea for condonation of delay, yet the same cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation. Even the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case the appellants/applicants have submitted that they are rustic villagers and that they were under impression that the impugned order has been passed in their favour and it is only after getting proper legal advice that they decided to file an appeal against the impugned order. It has not been mentioned in the application when the wisdom of filing appeal against the impugned order dawned upon the applicants. No particulars regarding the dates even the period when the appellant received the legal advice in this regard have been mentioned in the application. To support their contention that the applicants are rustic and illiterate persons who were not even able to comprehend the contours of the impugned order, no material has been placed on record. On the basis of bald assertions without specific details and without supporting material, it cannot be stated that the appellants/applicants were prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of RFA No.13/2023 CM No.2089/2023 CM No.2114/2023 7 | P a g e limitation. Thus appellants/applicants have failed to carve out a case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 13. The material on record shows that the appellants have been negligent in pursuing the remedy of appeal and they have woken up from deep slumber after an inordinate delay of about 255 days which has remained un-explained. 14. For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this application. The same is dismissed, consequently the appeal shall also stand dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 06.05.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 09.05.2025 10:31