$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 03.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 18.12.2025

+ RFA(OS) 70/2025, CM APPL. 72345/2025 (Ex.), CM APPL.

72346/2025 (Delay of 1883 days in filing the appeal) & CM

APPL. 72347/2025 (Delay of 182 days in Re-filing the appeal)

SUNIL KUMAR .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar and Mr.

Nilofar Akhtar, Advs.

versus

RAJEEV SURI .....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Appeal, under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, read with Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, CPC, challenges the Judgement dated 20.01.2020, Impugned Judgement in the suit bearing CS (OS) No. 279/2018 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. By way of the Impugned Judgement, the learned Single Judge adjudicated upon the said suit and partially decreed the Suit in favour

of the Appellant and against the Respondent for the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only), while dismissing the suit for the relief of specific performance against the Appellant.

3. The present Appeal was initially filed on 16.04.2025 and was later re-filed on 15.11.2025. Therefore, the present Appeal is also accompanied by two Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, read with Section 151 of CPC.

4. The Application bearing C.M. No. 72346 of 2025, dated 04.04.2025, is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1883 days in filing the captioned Appeal.

5. In addition, the Application bearing C.M. No.72347 of 2025, dated 27.05.2025, is filed seeking condonation of delay of 182 days in re-filing the said Appeal, after it was returned with objections.

6. Before adverting to the merits of the present Appeal, we consider it appropriate to first adjudicate the accompanying applications seeking condonation of delay in filing as well as re-filing of the Appeal. The consideration of the merits of the Appeal is contingent upon the outcome of these two applications.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

7. The learned counsel for the Appellant has, in the first instance, submitted that the Impugned Judgement was passed on 20.01.2020 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. He fairly admitted that the Appeal ought to have been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, he would submit that the same could not be filed owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent nationwide lockdown, which continued till June 2021.

8. The learned counsel for the Appellant, while placing reliance on the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, urged that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stood excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period, and the period of the limitation had, accordingly, commenced afresh from 01.03.2022.

9. The learned counsel has, in order to substantiate this contention, sought to derive support from the Judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in In re: Cognizance for extension of limitation (Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021), particularly paragraph Nos. 3, 5(I) and 5 (III), which are reproduced herein below:

“3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID-19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021.

*****

5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the preva