$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 404/2024 & CM APPL. 24634/2025 M/S VALUE LINE INTERIORS PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Namit Suri and Ms. Tanya Sharma, Advocates.

versus M/S SPAN SEATING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Kohli, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 03.12.2025 CM APPL. 36442/2024 (condonation of 143 days’ delay in filing)

Notice on the present application was issued vide order dated

03.07.2024.

2. Reply dated 09.09.2024 to the present application has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. After a brief hearing in the matter, as pointed-out by Mr. Manish Kohli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, it can be seen that the delay in filing the present appeal ought to be counted from the date of pronouncement of the ex-parte judgment by the learned trial court i.e. from 29.10.2022 upto the date of the filing of the present appeal i.e., upto 28.06.2024, which period comes to about 518 days and not 143 days, as has been canvassed on behalf of the appellant.

4. Insofar as the appellant’s contentions are concerned, Mr. Namit Suri, learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the delay in filing the appeal occurred as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, by reason of which, the counsel who had been engaged by the appellant (defendant No.1 in the suit) lost track of the proceedings in the suit; and that therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should be calculated from the date when the appellant learnt of the decree having been passed against him i.e., from the time that the appellant was served with notice dated 24.11.2023 from the learned executing court on 07.02.2024. It is submitted that after the appellant received notice from the learned executing court, they contacted their counsel and eventually filed the present appeal on 28.06.2024.

5. In this regard, learned counsel also argues, that in view of the hardship faced by litigants during the then prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, by its order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, the Supreme Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation; and accordingly, the appellant’s case should also be considered in light of the hardship faced by them during and after the period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

6. The court has heard learned counsel for the parties; and upon an overall conspectus of the arguments made, the following inferences arise:

6.1. The appellant cannot take benefit of order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, by which the Supreme Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 be excluded for the purposes of calculating limitation, since admittedly the appellant was represented before the learned trial court last on 04.03.2020 i.e., before lockdown was declared; and was set ex-parte vide order dated 25.08.2022 i.e. long-after lockdown was lifted and after the period set-out in the Supreme Court order had also run-out. In fact it was 02 months after the appellant was set ex-parte on 25.08.2022 that the ex-parte judgment was passed on 29.10.2022.

6.2. Insofar as the appellant’s contention as to the date of knowledge of the proceedings is concerned, it is the settled position of law that under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the date of knowledge of a party is not the point of commencement of limitation for filing an appeal. Also, there is no cogent explanation coming forth from the appellant as to why they did not follow-up on the pending proceedings, either directly or through their counsel, from the time that lockdown was lifted; and even thereafter until 25.08.2022 when the appellant was set ex-parte; and even upto 29.10.2022 when the ex-parte judgment was pronounced.

7. The appeal has come to be filed some 20 months after passing of the ex-parte judgment on 29.10.2022.

8. That being said however, this c