Back
2026 Supreme(HP) 436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
M/s Bharti Filling Station through its Proprietor - Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Kumar - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 88 of 2025
Decided On : 23-02-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Naveen K. Dass, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Naveen Awasthi, Advocate
Time spent in withdrawn prior proceeding not excludable under Section 14 of Limitation Act absent proven defect of jurisdiction; delay condonation denied where illness plea lacks evidence for relevant period.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Time spent prosecuting prior petition withdrawn without finding of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature cannot be excluded - Essential conditions of due diligence, good faith and jurisdictional defect not established - Expression 'other cause of like nature' read ejusdem generis with defect of jurisdiction - Medical ailment plea insufficient without evidence of incapacity during relevant limitation period. (Paras 7-10)
Facts of the case:
Complaint dismissed for non-prosecution after prolonged non-appearance. Prior petition filed and later withdrawn. Appeal filed after delay of one year, eleven months and five days, claimed due to illness and time in prior petition.
Findings of Court:
Delay not properly explained; application dismissed and proposed appeal held barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether time spent in prior withdrawn petition excludable under Section 14; whether sufficient cause shown via medical condition preventing timely filing.
Ratio Decidendi: No order indicating inability to entertain prior petition for want of jurisdiction; plea of ailment unsupported by material for period proximate to dismissal date; long unexplained delay attributable to circumstances not beyond control.
Result: Application dismissed; appeal stands disposed of as time-barred.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay condonation claimed for cancer and mmo time exclusion. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. opposition cites unexplained delay and non-prosecution. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court reviews arguments and case records. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 4. s.14 exclusion requires proven jurisdiction defect; illness unestablished. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. unexplained delay not condoned; appeal dismissed. (Para 11) |
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present application has been filed for condonation of 01 year, 11 months and 05 days’ delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant was suffering from cancer and was under treatment. He filed Cr.MMO No. 890 of 2023, but it was withdrawn. The applicant approached another counsel who has filed the present application. The delay in filing the appeal is not willful but due to the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
2. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability, and the applicant having not approached the Court with clean hands. It was asserted that the application had been filed to harass the respondent. The long delay in filing the appeal has not been explained. The applicant failed to pursue the complaint from October, 2018 till its dismissal on 01.07.2022. The applicant had no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.
3. I have heard Mr Naveen K. Dass, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Naveen Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Mr Naveen K. Dass, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was suffering from cancer due to which he could not appear before the Court. He filed the petition, which was registered as Cr.MMO No. 890 of 2023, and was withdrawn. The time spent in pursuing the petition should be deducted while computing the limitation in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
5. Mr Naveen Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the applicant did not appear before the learned Trial Court for more than 4 years, and the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The application was not filed within the period of limitation, and the applicant has failed to assign any reason for condonation of the delay. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The record shows that the complaint was dismissed on 01.07.2022, and the present petition was filed on 24.05.2024. A Cr. MMO No. 890 of 2023 was filed, which was withdrawn on 25.09.2023. It was submitted that the Cr.MMO was withdrawn because of a lack of jurisdiction, and the time spent in pursuing the CrMMO should be excluded while computing the limitation for filing the appeal. This submission cannot be accepted. There is nothing in the order to show that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the Cr.MMO filed by the applicant/complainant. Thus, the necessary condition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act that the Court is unable to hear the matter because of a lack of jurisdiction is not satisfied, and the time spent in pursuing the application cannot be condoned. It was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bakhtawar Singh v. Sada Kaur , 1986 SCC OnLine P&H 507, that where the matter was withdrawn but there was no finding that the Court was unable to hear and entertain the matter due to defect in the jurisdiction, the benefit of of the Limitation Act cannot be provided to the person. It was observed:
“It is quite evident that if the said suit was allowed to be withdrawn on account of a formal defect in the jurisdiction of the Court or other cause of a like nature,
