JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P.4) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Nuh, vide which the application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing an appeal against judgment and decree dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nuh, was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed, being time barred.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondent (Suresh Kochhar) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.02.2012 (Annexure P.1). The said suit was decreed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.2024 (Annexure P.2).

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner (Sunil Kumar Dahiya) instituted an appeal. The appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the 1963 Act') [Annexure P.3], for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the appeal.

4. It has been averred in the revision petition that the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal was caused on account of the office of the Counsel of the petitioner having been severely impacted by rainfall and having been flooded during the monsoon season, particularly on 28th and 29th June, 2024. It has been averred that on account of incessant and unprecedented rainfall, the entire office premises of the Counsel for the petitioner was completely submerged in water, resulting in extensive damage to the physical files, documents, electronic devices, hard devices, and computer systems. It has been averred that as a consequence thereof, many files, including important documents relating to the instant matter, were irreparably damaged. Electronic data stored in hard devices and computers was also lost beyond recovery. It has been averred that on account of the aforesaid circumstances, the delay of 36 days occurred in filing the appeal.

5. It has been averred that the Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay on flimsy grounds without examining the matter from the correct perspective. It has been averred that the sole ground on which the application for condonation of delay was dismissed was that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for on 29.05.2024, and the same was received on 06.06.2024, which was much before the flooding incident of 28th and 29th June, 2024. The Court held that since the certified copy of the judgment and decree was intact, the theory of files having been damaged on account of floods was not believable. It has been averred that the Court lost sight of the fact that the delay had not occurred on account of destruction of the certified copy of the judgment, but on account of loss of the records of the trial Court and the additional evidence to be filed at the Appellate stage.

6. It has been averred that, in fact, the requisite stamp duty for filing the appeal had been purchased and paid much before the expiry of the limitation period. To prove the said contention, a copy of the stamp duty challan has been annexed with the revision petition as Annexure P.6.

7. It has been averred that an execution petition was preferred by the respondent and in the said execution petition, an application for the grant of stay was filed. It has been averred that the execution proceedings are still pending. It has been averred that the delay in filing the appeal was purely on account of the inability of the Counsel for the petitioner to access the crucial documents and reconstruct the case file due to an unforeseen natural calamity. It has further been averred that a litigant should not be penalized for the mistake or negligence of his Counsel, particularly when the delay had been caused due to the genuine and unavoidable circumstances. It has, therefore, been a