Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU
Yash Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kehar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition challenges dismissal of condonation of delay. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court weighs delay explanation against equitable principles. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order dated 04.09.2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequentially, the first appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2025 was rejected as time-barred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court that the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence in the sense contemplated in the authorities. Rather it arose out of the petitioner’s genuine incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once he received the execution summons. It was further urged that the right of appeal is a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be condoned subject to such terms as this Court may deem fit, including imposition of costs to meet any prejudice caused to the responde
A delay in filing an appeal can be condoned based on a plausible explanation involving the appellant’s advanced age and health issues, highlighting the court's emphasis on substantive rights over tec....
Courts can condone delays in appeals due to sufficient cause, especially for elderly or marginalized litigants facing health challenges, fostering a compassionate approach to justice.
Timeliness in legal proceedings is critical, and mere health claims must be substantiated with evidence to justify delays in filings; lack of sufficient cause leads to dismissal of condonation applic....
Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if sufficient cause is established, ensuring justice for both parties involved.
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
The court emphasizes that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and mere assertions of negligence by counsel are insufficient to warrant condonation.
Unexplained delay cannot be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The court emphasized a liberal approach in assessing sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly when the delay is marginal and does not prejudice th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
