IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 130 CM-3638-C-2026 in/and RSA-978-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.:19.03.2026 Jasmer @ Jassu …..Appellant Vs. Sonu and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sawan Choudhary, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by one of the defendants–appellants against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit for possession filed by the plain$ffs–respondents Sonu and others was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 01.12.2017; and the appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 27.09.2024, affirming the said findings. CM-3638-C-2026 2. Along with the appeal, an applica$on bearing No. CM-3638-C- 2026 has been filed under Sec$on 5 of the Limita$on Act seeking condona$on of delay of 441 days in filing the present appeal. 3. In the applica$on, it is pleaded that the appellant is a rus$c villager and was not aware of the limita$on period for filing the appeal and that it was only upon contac$ng his counsel that he came to know that the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3638-C-2026 in/and RSA-978-2026 (O&M) -2- limita$on prescribed was 90 days. On this premise, it is urged that the delay of 441 days was uninten$onal and deserves to be condoned. The applica$on is supported by an affidavit. 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. The expression “sufficient cause” under Sec$on 5 of the Limita$on Act must receive a liberal construc$on, however, the same cannot be stretched to cover inac$on or negligence on the part of a li$gant. It is equally well se>led that a party seeking condona$on must furnish a plausible and acceptable explana$on for the en$re period of delay. 6. In the present case, the explana$on furnished is wholly unsa$sfactory. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was duly represented by counsel not only before the learned Trial Court but also before the learned First Appellate Court. Once the appellant was availing legal assistance throughout the proceedings, the plea that he was unaware of the limita$on period cannot be accepted. 7. Further, no explana$on whatsoever has been offered as to why the appellant did not contact his counsel immediately a@er the dismissal of the appeal on 27.09.2024, if he was genuinely interested in pursuing further remedy. The delay of 441 days is substan$al and cannot be condoned in a rou$ne manner in the absence of any cogent explana$on. 8. The applica$on thus reflects sheer negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. 9. Consequently, finding no sufficient cause to condone the delay, the applica$on under Sec$on 5 of the Limita$on Act is hereby dismissed. On Merits 10. Even otherwise, on merits also, the appeal does not deserve to NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3638-C-2026 in/and RSA-978-2026 (O&M) -3- succeed. 11. The case of the plain$ffs is that they are owners of the suit land having inherited the same from their predecessor and that the defendants had illegally dispossessed them from a por$on measuring 13 marlas about one year prior to the ins$tu$on of the suit. It was further pleaded that upon demarca$on, it was found that the said por$on had been encroached upon and merged by the defendants into their property. 12. The defendants, on the other hand, set up a plea that they were in possession of the suit property for the last 60–70 years and had constructed houses thereupon, and thus claimed ownership by way of adverse possession. 13. The learned Trial Court, upon apprecia$on of the evidence, par$cularly the demarca$on report (Ex.P2) and Naksha Tafawat (Ex.P3), recorded a categorical finding that the defendants had encroached upon the land of the plain$ffs. It was also no$ced that the demarca$on was conducted a@er due no$ce to all concerned par$es. The plea of adverse possession was rejected as not proved. 14. The learned First Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, re-appreciated the en$re evidence and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. It has been specifically observed that the encroachment by the defendants stands established from the demarca$on report duly proved on record and that the defendants failed to substan$ate either their plea of adverse possession or their claim regarding allotment of land. 15. The Appellate Court has also rightly observed that if the defendants had any grievance against the demarca$on report, it was open to them to seek fresh demarca$on by appointment of a Local Commissioner, which they failed to do. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-3638-C-2026 in/and RSA-978-2026 (O&M) -4- 16. The conten$on regarding varia$on in the extent of land (13 marlas vis-à-vis 9 marlas) has also been rightly rejected, as the evidence on record clarified the nature and extent of encroachment. 17. This Court finds that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of fact based on proper apprecia$on of oral as well as documentary evidence. 18. It is well se>led that in a Regular Second Appeal under Sec$on 100 CPC, interference is permissible only when the case involves a substan$al ques$on of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless the same are perverse, based on misreading of evidence or suffer from patent illegality. 19. No such perversity or illegality has been pointed out in the present case. The conclusions arrived at by the Courts below are well- reasoned and based on cogent evidence. 20. No substan$al ques$on of law arises for considera$on. Conclusion 21. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of limita$on as well as on merits. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica$on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 19, 2026 Nee$ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document