Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
N PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
M/S CONSOLIDATED CARPET INDUSTRIES LTD – Respondent
RFA-617/2019
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.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3 and 5 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Inaction or negligence - 922 days delay - The court is vested with authority to exercise its discretion to condone delay, however, existence of sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time is a condition precedent - Where negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large, and a party is not found to have acted diligently, the court would not exercise its discretion - The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. (Paras 5, 6, 14, 15)
(B) Legal Proceedings - Duty of Litigant - Professional misconduct of counsel - An educated litigant cannot claim protection by blaming the counsel when the litigant himself failed to keep track of his own legal issues - Diligence is an essential requirement - The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. (Paras 7, 11, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
A party filed an appeal with a delay of 922 days against a lower court's review order. The justification provided for this delay included the shifting of the legal counsel’s office resulting in the loss of case documents and the hardship faced by the appellant residing in a distant location, preventing timely follow-up on the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the explanations provided were vague and unsatisfactory. It emphasized that "sufficient cause" is a requirement for condoning delay under the law, and such discretion cannot be used to excuse gross negligence, indifference, or a lack of diligence. It reiterated that the limitation period applies strictly even if it causes hardship.
Issues: Whether a delay of 922 days in filing an appeal can be condoned based on the misplacing of documents by counsel and the geographic distance of the litigant from the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden to establish "sufficient cause" lies on the applicant. Condonation of delay cannot be a tool for reviving stale claims or excusing negligence. Because the applicant failed to act with reasonable diligence and remained inactive, the court refused to exercise its discretion to condone the delay, maintaining the discipline of limitation.
Result: The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
$~
* 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
26th 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 30th 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 30th 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 26th 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
