Litigants must maintain diligence about their cases; blaming counsel for delays does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such delays under the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

Heard on IA. No.6452/2021 an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC for substitution of legal representatives of sole appellant Kailash Narayan Joshi.

2. IA. No.5810/2025 has been filed under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and IA.No.5809/2025 has been filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT .

IA.No.5809/2025

3. It is mentioned in the application that appellant Kailash Narayan Joshi had expired on 26.07.2019. The proposed legal representatives of Kailash Narayan Joshi had no idea about the pendency of this appeal and they came to know for the first time only when on 21.10.2021 an information was given by counsel for respondent about the death of appellant-Kailash Narayan Joshi and accordingly, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed on 16.11.2021. It is not out of place to mention here that application under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT were filed on 30.07.2025.

4. Be that whatever it may be.

5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the proposed legal representatives of sole appellant Kailash Narayan Joshi have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in setting aside abatement or not?

6. IA. No.6452/2021 is supported by an affidavit of Shri Gagan Parashar who is the grandson of Kailash Narayan Joshi and is a practising lawyer. As already pointed out, all the parties are the residents of Gwalior and the case is pending before the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is beyond reconciliation that the practising advocate was not aware of the pendency of litigation. It is nowhere mentioned as to why the parties who are the residents of same city where the High Court is situated and their practising lawyer is staying, did not approach the practising lawyer to find out the status of their pending appeal. It is for the litigants to keep track of their case and they cannot shift the entire responsibility to the shoulders of their counsel.

7. Delhi High Court in the case of Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch and Others Vs. Anand Raj Jhawar Sole Proprietor of M/S RR Agrotech reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 878 has held as under:-

5. As mentioned above, the only explanation advanced by the appellants with regard to the colossal delay of 565 days in filing the appeal is that their erstwhile counsel kept them in dark. This explanation needs to be tested on the anvil of the judicially sanctified parameters under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT .

5.1 As regards Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , the undisputed propositions of law as culled out of various judicial precedents are as follows. Where an applicant is able to satisfy the court that he was precluded from filing the appeal or application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI CPC from circumstances beyond his control, the court has discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal etc. Like any other discretion, the discretion under Section 5 of the Act also must be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind the principles evolved across time. One of those principles evolved across time is that the sufficiency of cause set up by the applicant under Section 5 of the Act must be construed liberally in favour of the applicant. Unless no explanation for delay is submitted or the explanation furnished is wholly unacceptable, the court must liberally condone the delay, if third party rights had not become embedded during the interregnum. It is not the length of delay but the sufficiency of cause which has to be examined by the court, in the sense that if there is sufficient cause, delay of long period can be condoned but if it is otherwise, delay of even a few days cannot be condoned. The purpose of construing the expression “sufficie