RAMESH CHAND AND ORS vs MEHAR CHAND AND ANR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3271

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - ‘Sufficient cause’ - Litigant’s duty to be vigilant - Huge and unexplained delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of blaming the counsel for negligence - While a liberal approach is generally adopted to advance substantial justice, it cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation or revive dead matters. (Paras 15, 16, 22)

(B) Advocate and Client relationship - Advocate as an agent of the party - Acts and statements made within the limits of authority are the acts and statements of the principal - No absolute rule allows a party to disown their advocate to seek relief for inordinate delay, as litigants owe a duty to be vigilant of their own rights. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was subsequently preferred before the first appellate court after a delay of more than four and a half years. The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, asserting that their counsel failed to inform them of the judgment. The first appellate court dismissed the application, which led to the present second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The application for condonation of delay was cryptic and vague, failing to disclose any sufficient cause that prevented the filing of the appeal within the prescribed period. The appellants failed to show any steps taken to verify the status of the case, and the entire blame was shifted to the counsel.

Issues: Whether the first appellate court erred in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay is a discretionary power that requires the establishment of ‘sufficient cause’ as a condition precedent. A liberal approach cannot be used to jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially when negligence or lack of bona fides is evident. The law assists those who are watchful and not those who sleep over their rights; therefore, inordinate and unexplained delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds alone.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for declaration and injunctions — Trial court decreed ownership — Appeal beyond limitation — Application to condone delay under Section 5, Limitation Act dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )

2. Appellants sought condonation blaming counsel's failure to inform; respondents opposed, urging no sufficient cause and litigant's duty of vigilance. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 )

3. Regular second appeal dismissed; order refusing condonation affirmed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. (Para 26 , 28 , 29 )

4. Can an advocate's failure to inform the client of the judgment amount to sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

No. A litigant owes a duty to be vigilant about proceedings and cannot place the entire blame on counsel; advocate's negligence by itself is not sufficient cause to condone long and inordinate delay. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 )

5. Does a liberal approach to condonation of delay justify reviving time-barred appeals without sufficient cause?

No. Existence of sufficient cause is a condition precedent; liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot override the law of limitation or revive stale or dead matters, and a decree-holder's accrued right should not be lightly disturbed. (Para 22 , 23 , 27 )

6. Can the court extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds?

No. The court has no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds; the applicant must establish an adequate and enough reason that prevented filing the appeal within the prescribed period. (Para 24 )

7. Is an appeal filed after expiry of limitation liable to be dismissed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act?

Yes. Section 3 is peremptory; such an appeal is liable to be dismissed unless the applicant establishes sufficient cause under Section 5, which confers a discretionary power. (Para 25 )

Romesh Verma , Judge (oral)

1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 16.08.2018, as passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2014, as passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehra, Distt. Kangra, H.P., whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, has been dismissed being without any merit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for declaration before learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Dehra, District kangra, H.P. on 27.04.2007. As per the averments as made in the plaint, Jugni Devi, original plaintiff, is the owner inf possession of suit land and she is the exclusive owner of a cow shed as shown in the site plan comprised in Khtata No. 39, Khatauni No. 74, Khasra No. 196 area measuring 0-16-98 hectares, situated in Mohal Badhed, Mauja Mahadev, Tehsil Khundian, District kangra, H.P. It has been stated that the husband of the plaintiff Sh. Roshan Lal was owner in possession of land in suit. The plaintiff being wife has succeeded to him as owner in possession after the death of Roshan Lal, (which took place on 12.9.1995). The defendants are not related to plaintiff or her husband are clever persons. The defendants duped Late Sh. Roshan Lal, when he was seriously ill by bringing medicines and even once accompanied him to Khundian, for treatment.

3. As per plaintiff, late Sh. Roshan Lal had not executed Will dated 24.8.1995 as claimed by defendants as in those days he was seriously ill and bed ridden. There was no occasion for Late Sh. Roshan Lal to execute a Will in favour of defendants. The defendants on the basis of Will got attested mutation No. 26 on 11.01.1996 in favour of plaintiff and defendants, without informing the plaintiff. The said mutation is wrong, illegal, null and void andf not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants are threatening to cut, fell and remove the trees situatetd over the land and have also threatened to cut the crop grown forcibly. Therefore, it was prayed that suit be decreed, thereby declaring the plaintiff to be the owner in possession of land in suit.

4. The suit was contested by petitioners/defendants by filing written statement, in which preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, limitation etc. have been taken. All the averments made in the plaint were refuted and denied.

5. The learned trial Court framed issues on 13.09.2007, in the following manner:

1. Whether plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of suit land i.e. Khata No.23, Khatauni No.33, Khasra Nos.39, 42, 70, 74, 76, 112, 113, 115, 125, 131, 133, 135, 137,139, 140, 152, 172, 180, 185, 282, 286, 287, 292, 293, 333, Kitam 25 area 1-08-25 hectares, situated in Mohal Badhed, Mauza Mahadev, Tehsil Khundian, Distt. Kangra as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is also exclusive owner of house IJBDCA and cowshed EFGH as shown in site plan and comprised in Khata No. 39, Khatauni No.74, Khasra No. 196 area 0-16-98 hectares, as allege d? OPP

3. Whether the entry of odefendants as co-owners is wrong on the basis of mutation no. 26 passed on 11.1 996 is false, frivolous and null and void atnd not executed by Late Sh. Roshan Lal?r OPP.

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as payed for? OPP.

7. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

8. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD.

9. Whether suit is false and frivolous and bad for supply of better particulars as alleged? OPD.

10. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD.

11. Relief.

6. The learned trial Court directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and after concluding the evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
RAMESH CHAND AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
MEHAR CHAND AND ANR – Respondent
RSA/77/2026

Inordinate delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be condoned solely by blaming counsel for negligence. Litigants must remain vigilant of their rights, and a 'liberal approach' to 'sufficient cause' cannot override statutory limitation periods or revive dead matters.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can an advocate's failure to inform the client of the judgment amount to sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

5. Does a liberal approach to condonation of delay justify reviving time-barred appeals without sufficient cause?

6. Can the court extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds?

7. Is an appeal filed after expiry of limitation liable to be dismissed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMARAMESH CHAND AND ORS – AppellantVersusMEHAR CHAND AND ANR – RespondentRSA/77/2026

Inordinate delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be condoned solely by blaming counsel for negligence. Litigants must remain vigilant of their rights, and a 'liberal approach' to 'sufficient cause' cannot override statutory limitation periods or revive dead matters.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can an advocate's failure to inform the client of the judgment amount to sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

5. Does a liberal approach to condonation of delay justify reviving time-barred appeals without sufficient cause?

6. Can the court extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds?

7. Is an appeal filed after expiry of limitation liable to be dismissed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act?

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
RAMESH CHAND AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
MEHAR CHAND AND ANR – Respondent
RSA/77/2026