JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-11541-C-2023

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 2376 days in refiling the appeal.

2. The reasons cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 2376 days delay in refiling the appeal are as under:-

“2. That the appeal was filed on 14.10.2015 but the registry raised some objections on 02.12.2015. The clerk collected the same from the registry and the appellant was asked to make good the deficit court fee as well as provide relevant record in support of the case as the record was not complete. The appellant failed to complete the missing documents or even give any further instructions.

3. That the appellant could not be contacted despite repeated endeavors made by the counsel and finally when the appellant came with relevant documents in Oct, 2016 and the court fee, by that time the counsel had shifted his office premises and the brief of the present case was lost.”

3. The said reasons do not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary and inordinate delay of 2376 days in refiling the present appeal. From the above, it would appear that the applicant/appellant was not serious in pursuing the appeal and therefore, he caused the delay in supplying relevant documents to the learned counsel.

4. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification.

5. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 2376 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

RSA-3230-2023 (O&M)

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession by way of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 27.5.2003, and for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a present suit with the pleading that Resham Singh deceased husband of defendant No.1 was owner in possession of suit land as described in the plaint. It was averred that vide Agreement to Sell dated 27.05.2003, Resham Singh had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.9 lacs. Resham Singh had received an amount of Rs.7 lacs by way of earnest money. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 08.04.2005. It was alleged that possession of suit property had been delivered by Resham Singh to the plaintiff. Resham Singh had expired on 29.02.2005 leaving behind his wife defendant No.1. Although Resham Singh and his wife had been residing in America, plaintiff had contacted defendant No.1 in America. It was alleged that defendant No.1 had assured the plaintiff that she will visit India in April 2005 to execute the Sale Deed in his favour. Plaintiff had enquired from Halqa Patwari to obtain the latest Jamabandi, which was obtained on 30.03.2005 for the year 1999-2000 and it was revealed that vide Mutation No. 1591, suit land had been alienated by Resham Singh in favour of defendant No.2 vide Sale Deed dated 12.05.2004. It was alleged that Sale Deed dated 12.05.2004 is a forged, fabricated and without consideration and, therefore, it does not affect the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had appro