IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.

JUDGMENT :

Girish Kathpalia, J.

CM APPL. 55240/2023 (for condonation of delay of 350 days in filing) & CM APPL. 55241/2023 (for condonation of delay of 101 days in re-filing)

1. The appellants, being legal representatives of the original plaintiff substituted the plaintiff before the trial court after his death. The suit for recovery of Rs. 7,48,874.89 with interest was partly decreed for a sum of only Rs. 79,846.85 with interest. Hence the present appeal by the appellants, claiming the entire suit amount.

2. The impugned judgment and decree being dated 13.12.2021, the prescribed period of limitation to file appeal expired on 15.03.2022, but the appeal was filed on 27.02.2023. Even thereafter, more than 100 days were spent by the appellants on rectification of defects raised by the Registry.

3. By way of the present applications, the appellants seek condonation of delay of 350 days in filing the appeal and 101 days in re-filing the appeal. Reply to the application has already been filed. I have heard learned counsel for both sides.

4. The delay in filing the appeal has been explained in completely vague manner, stating that the appellants had no knowledge about the case. It would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the delay condonation application, which is as follows:

“c) Because the Applicant was having no knowledge of proceedings or the judgement passed by the Ld. Trial Court till he received an email from the Opposite Counsel on 3rd January 2023. It is stated that even on that the applicant / accused was not aware of the legal requirements that he ought to have challenged the order and Judgment dated 13.12.2021 as he never appeared before the Hon'ble Court and only his father appeared through his Counsel and he was having no knowledge of the said case and was not even aware about the limitation period and legal proceedings. d) Because the delay in challenging the order dated 13/12/2021 is due the reason that the applicant was never apprised by the order dated 13/12/2021 as he never appeared in the court case.

e) Because the Legal Heirs / Applicant were in deep trauma after the demise of their father and it took them months to settle all the business work and their life.

f) Because the applicant shall suffer irreparably in case if the delay in filing the appeal is not Condoned and further, he shall be forced to face the consequences of the loss at their business.

g) Because the Applicant bonafidely believed that the case is still pending and the judgment has not been passed and as soon as he went through the email of the Opposite Counsel, They immediately approached their Counsel in the month of February 2023 and since then it was lying under the Objections before the Registry and soon after the objections the Counsel for the Appellant applied for the Certified Copy of the Case and the same was delivered in the month of March but due to some medical difficulties with the counsel for the Appellant the appeal could not be filed on time therefore the Appellant is Approaching the Hon'ble High Court by the way of this present appeal.”

5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the respondent has been repeatedly sending emails to the appellants with the request to accept the entire decretal amount, but to no avail and even before the learned trial court, the respondent filed application in that regard but the appellants opted not to accept the decretal amount.

6. As regards delay in filing the appeal, the only submission made by learned counsel for appellants today is that the appellants were not aware that they had to file an appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree. But admittedly, it is the same learned counsel (appearing today), who was counsel for the appellants throughout the trial and even thereafter till date. It is not a case of some previous/other counsel committing any professional misconduct.

7. It would be apposite to briefly traverse through the legal position on the scope of Section 5 Limitation Act