Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 830

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Sujan Singh and others - Petitioners
Versus
Sanjay Kumar – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 38 of 2020
Decided On : 25-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

The court ruled that the petitioners failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the distinction between an explanation and an excuse.

Headnote:
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal dismissed by 1st Appellate Court - Petitioners argued that delay was due to obtaining certified copy of judgment - Court held that the explanation provided was more of an excuse than a valid reason for delay - The petitioners failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. (Paras 8, 10, 15, 17)

(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized the distinction between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse' in the context of condonation of delay, stating that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, defendants in a suit for permanent injunction, sought to condone a delay of over a year in filing an appeal against a decree passed in favor of the respondent. They claimed the delay was due to obtaining a certified copy of the judgment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not provide a valid explanation for the delay and that their reasons were insufficient to warrant condonation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners provided a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners' reasons did not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Bipin C. Negi, J.)

The present petitioner has been filed seeking a following relief:-

(i). The impugned/order dated 24.12.2019 in CMA No. 2-G/2019 (CNR HP KA010062042018) Annexure P-5 passed by the learned Additional District Judge- II, Kangra at Dharamshala Circuit Court at Jawali, may kindly be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petitioner.

2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings.

3. The present petitioners were the defendants before the trial Court. The suit filed for permanent prohibitory injunction by the present respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court on 07.07.2009 was decreed vide judgment dated 28.12.2017.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an appropriate appeal was filed before the 1^st Appellate Court, however, in the filing of the appeal, there was a delay of more than one year. Hence, for condonation of delay on filing the appeal before the 1^st Appellate Court, an application under Section 5 was filed.

5. In the application filed for condonation of delay, it was pleaded by the present petitioner that most of the petitioners are serving outside in order to eke out a livelihood. It was further submitted that some of the applicants are ladies whose domain is their households. Other than the aforesaid, it was pleaded that the present respondent was assuring the petitioners for a compromise and as such, the appeal could not be filed within time.

6. It is further pleaded in the application that it is only when an execution was filed for implementing the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017 passed by the trial Court and summons were received by the present petitioners, on receipt of the same, a certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017 was applied for 1.1.2018. The same was received on 07.12.2018. Immediately thereafter, an appeal was got drafted and filed.

7. In response to the aforesaid averments, it is categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioners No. 2 to 3 and 9 as well as their counsel was appearing in the ld. Lower Court on each and every day for hearing. It is further categorically stated in the response to the application that on the date which the suit was decreed in favour of the present respondent, all the aforesaid were present in the Court. Insofar as the aspect of compromise is concerned, it was categorically stated by the respondent in his response that since the present petitioners did not compromise with the respondent on that terms and conditions, therefore compromise could not fructified.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, vide impugned judgment dated 24.12.2019, the 1^st Appellate Court had dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that in the case at hand insofar as the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017 is concerned, the petitioners had applied for a copy of the same on 1.1.2018, however, certified copy of the same was provided to them on 7.12.2018. Immediately thereafter the present application alongwith the appeal was drafted on 7.12.2018. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that applying for a copy on 1.1.2018, no time was fixed by the copying agency either as to the date when the copy would be ready and when the same would be delivered to the applicant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the time required for obtaining the copy should be counted up to the date when the copy was actually delivered on 7.12.2018. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in ILR 1975 Himachal Series 237. Relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“3. Now we have to see as to which is the time requisite for obtaining the copy whether it is only the time upto the preparation of the copy or the date on which the copy is actually delivered. I have seen the application. The