The delay in filing an appeal is not condoned when insufficient diligence is shown, and limitation is calculated based on the last payment, confirming the applicability of Articles 1 and 113 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

CM APPL 74949/2025 & CM APPL 74950/2025 (Condonation of delay of 1,000 days in filing and 14 days in re-filing the appeal)

1. These applications by the appellants/defendants, Appellants hereinafter seek condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the present appeal. The time limit for challenging a money decree as laid down under Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, is 60 days, with the present appeal being filed after a delay of 1,000 days.

2. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, allows a court to condone delay where sufficient cause is shown. The application for condonation assigns the reason for this delay as an inability to contact their counsel due to COVID-19 and update themselves regarding the dates of hearing, and that their counsel was negligent in not appearing at the stage of plaintiff evidence. The application states that the existence of the ex-parte decree against the appellants only first came to the appellants' knowledge on receipt of notice in execution proceedings against them in February 2025 from a commercial court in Aligarh, U.P.

3. Seeing as to how all allegations against the appellants' previous counsel are unsubstantiated by any earlier formal action against him, we are not inclined to condone the present delay of 1,000 days. We emphasise that sufficient cause to condone delay cannot exist in the absence of diligence shown on the part of a litigant.

4. This is especially so due to the object of the Commercial Courts Act in ensuring strict adherence of timelines by parties to facilitate the speedy disposal of suits, coupled with the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors P Ltd.

5. The applications stand disposed of for the aforesaid reasons.

RFA (COMM) 665/2025

6. Despite our refusal to condone the delay of 1,000 days in filing the present appeal, we deem it appropriate to apply our minds to its substance, owing to a litigant‘s substantive right to a first appeal.

7. This regular first appeal, RFA filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, assails ex-parte judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) – 01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CS (COMM) 185/2019, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, Respondent hereinafter has been partially decreed in its favour to the extent of Rs.8,34,336/- along with interest at 10% per annum accruing from 09.01.2019, along with costs of Rs.15,707/-.

8. The appellants later moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying that the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022 be set aside. This application came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2025, which has not been impugned in the present appeal.

9. Upon consent of counsel for both sides, we have decided to hear this appeal finally.

The Impugned Judgment & Decree dated 21.12.2022

10. The case of the respondent is that the appellants are a proprietorship concern carrying out trading related business and that the respondent is a company engaged in the business of architectural interior products, including laminates and allied materials. The respondent supplied goods to the appellants against multiple invoices, of which six invoices raised during the period of February to May 2016 comprised the decretal amount sought. A running account was said to have been maintained between the parti