Condonation of delay requires proof of sufficient cause and applicant diligence. It cannot be used to ignore strict limitation laws or excuse professional negligence and litigant inactivity, as courts must prioritize the finality of litigation over the mitigation of hardship caused by a party's own negligence.

##PAGE1##

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 10th November, 2025

Pronounced on: 18th December, 2025

+ RFA 617/2019 & CM APPL. 30376/2019, CM APPL. 30377/2019 &

CM APPL. 5418/2023

N PRAKASH .....Appellant

Through: Ms. Zeba Khair and Ms. Tanu Priya

Jaiswal, Advs.

Mob: 9953779565

versus

M/S CONSOLIDATED CARPET INDUSTRIES LTD.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aditya Bharech, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

JUDGEMENT

CM APPL. 30376/2019 (For condonation of delay in filing the appeal)

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the review order dated

26^th September, 2016 in the suit bearing CS No. 353/2015 (Old No.

147/2011), passed by the Additional District Judge-05, South District, Saket

Court, New Delhi, in the case titled as “M/s Consolidated Carpets Industries

Ltd. Versus Sh. N. Prakash”. The appeal has been filed along with the

present application being CM APPL. 30376/2019, seeking condonation of

delay of 922 days.

2. The respondent/plaintiff, i.e., M/s Consolidated Carpet Industries Ltd.

had initially filed a suit bearing CS No. 353/2015 (Old No. 147/2011)

against the appellant/defendant, i.e., Sh. N. Prakash, seeking a decree of Rs.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed RFA 617/2019 Page 1 of 15

By:HARIOM SHARMA

Signing Date:18.12.2025

19:14:00

##PAGE2##

3,39,852/-, along with interest. The Trial Court, vide final judgment and

decree dated 30^th September, 2015, decreed the suit in favour of the

respondent by holding that the appellant was liable to the respondent to the

extent of Rs. 16,861.46/- along with interest @6% per annum.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 30^th September, 2015, the

respondent filed a review application being M. No. 8751/2016 before the

Trial Court. The review application filed by the respondent was allowed by

the Trial Court vide order dated 26^th September, 2016, thereby, holding that

the respondent was entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,39,852/-, as claimed by the

respondent in the suit. Thus, the said review order has been impugned in the

present appeal.

4. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 922 days. As regards

its prayer for condonation of delay, the appellant has sought to justify the

delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the appellant’s counsel shifted

office and consequently lost certain documents/papers pertaining to the

present case. Further, the appellant, being a resident of Bangalore, could not

follow up on the case. The submissions made by the appellant, elucidating

the reasons for not filing the appeal within time, as encapsulated in the

present application seeking condonation for delay, are reproduced as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

3. That the Appellant thereafter filed an Appeal vide diary No.

58981/2017, which was taken out in objection. That the Counsel for

the Appellant took the aforesaid Appeal from the registry as it was

lying there in objection. In the mean while Counsel for the

Appellant was shifting to a new office and during the course of

shifting the Counsel lost track of the Appeal and since the Appellant

lives in Bangalore, even he could not follow up, that it was only after

receiving a summon from a Execution Court, the Appellant realized

his grave mistake.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed RFA 617/2019 Page 2 of 15

By:HARIOM SHARMA

Signing Date:18.12.2025

19:14:00

##PAGE3##

4. That the Appeal could not be filed sooner as the Advocate of the

Applicant was moving office and some of the documents in respect

of the present case went untraceable for a certain period of time.

Further, delay was also occasioned due to the fact that the Applicant

is a permanent resident of Bangalore and could not follow up, it was

only after receiving a summon from a Executing Court in

Bengaluru, the Applicant/ Appellant realised about the pending

appeal which was yet to be filed in the High Court of Delhi.

5. It is respectfully submitted that the above Appeal could not be

filed within the stipulated period of ninety days from 26/09/2016 due

to the aforesaid bona fide reasons/sufficient cause that were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document