$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 43/2026, CM APPL. 2669/2026, CM APPL. 2670/2026, CM APPL. 2671/2026 & CM APPL. 2672/2026 SH ASHOK KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate versus SHRI MUKESH KUMAR (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 15.01.2026 CM APPL. 2668/2026 1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2023 whereby the Suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed due to lack of evidence. 2. Present Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 910 days in filing the Appeal. 3. It is submitted that the delay is unintentional as there were various relevant documents upon which the Appellant seeks to rely which were not in his possession at the time of filing of the Suit nor were they in his possession at the time of passing the judgment. The documents have now been filed alongwith an Application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/01/2026 at 13:47:01 Section 151 CPC. The documents are old and complete documents could not be traced. He had on numerous occasions tried to get the complete records from the authority but was unable to find them. 4. The Appellant is a senior citizen having no knowledge of the legal procedures. He has not been keeping good health and is old and has failed to seek legal advice. The Appellant is an indigent person who lacks financial means and also does not have a mobile phone. In addition, the Appellant used to contact the Counsel through different relatives, neighbors’ number which also used to change. The Appellant in between was not contactable for filing of the present Appeal. 5. Thereafter, upon contacting the Appellant and after tracing the record, the Appeal has been referred. Time was taken by the Appellant to search and look for the documents in the records of the authority. Therefore, the impugned judgment could not be challenged within the prescribed time. A prayer is, therefore, made that the delay of 910 days be condoned. Submission heard and record perused. 6. The Suit for declaration simplicitor was filed by the Plaintiff on 15.07.2014. The record shows that despite innumerable opportunities granted to the Appellant, he failed to adduce any evidence which was finally closed and the Suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed. 7. Now also the arguments are that he is extremely poor and a simple person who does not comprehend many things. Further, the only ground on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that Appellant has now been able to file a part Partition Deed to corroborate his assertion of there being a subsequent oral partition inter se the family members. 8. Though it is claimed that this Partition Deed has been subsequently This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/01/2026 at 13:47:01 recovered but no explanation of how, when, where this document was traced. There is a delay of 910 and whatever days. There is no cogent explanation for this delay and there exists no ground to condone the delay. 9. Application is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal alongwith pending Applications, is also dismissed. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JANUARY 15, 2026 N This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/01/2026 at 13:47:01