The court emphasized the importance of timely appeals and the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause for delay, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules should not hinder justice.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant Hira Devi (Plaintiff in the main Suit) under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) against theJudgment dated 24.09.2025 whereby the learned District Judge, New Delhi has dismissed the Appeal against Judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge (South), New Delhi filed by the original Plaintiff, as being barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts are that a Suit for Possession and Declaration was filed by the original Plaintiff Hira Devi against the Respondent, for possession of property bearing No. 4/109, DDA Slum Flats, Kalkaji comprising of one room on the fourth floor (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’), and Declaration of the documents dated 27.03.2000 being forged and fabricated and thus, as null and void.

3. Vide Order dated 26.02.2010, the Defendant No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte, while Defendant No.3 contested the Suit by filing his Written Statement. During the proceedings, the original Plaintiff expired, and the case was continued to be contested by her legal heir, Sh. Attar Singh.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in respect of suit property, as prayed for in the suit? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP

4. Relief.

5. The original Plaintiff Smt. Hira Devi had examined herself as PW1 to prove documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5.

6. Defendant No.3 deposed as D3W1 and relied on documents Ex.D3W1/1 to Ex.D3W1/8.

7. On the appreciation of the documents and evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiff vide Judgment dated 19.04.2017, by holding that the Plaintiff had failed to prove her possession over the Suit Property and also the non-execution of documents in favour of Defendant No.1. Also, it was held that the Suit is barred by limitation.

8. Subsequently, an Appeal was preferred by the Appellant against the Judgment dated 19.04.2017, along with the Application under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC, for the condonation of delay of 1589 days. The Application was dismissed on 24.09.2025 on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to explain the delay of 1589 days. Consequently, the Appeal was also dismissed, which is the subject matter of the present Appeal.

9. Thegrounds on which the Impugned Judgment has been challenged, is that the Appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay without examining that the Judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court, had misapplied thelaw of limitation, to a consolidated Suit for Possession and Declaration. Such refusal has resulted in continuation of a patently illegal decree. It has not been appreciated that delay must be examined in the context of the facts of each case. Reliance on Pathapati Subba Reddy vs. Special Deputy Collector ( LA ), (2024) 12 SCC 336 to reject the Application for Condonation of Delay is misapplied, since it does not mandate mechanical rejection of delay Applications and does not permit refusal of condonation where such refusal pe