IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

in/and RSA-1720-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision.:09.02.2026 Baljit Kaur and Others …..Appellants Vs.

Dial Singh (now deceased) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The appellants, who were the plain(cid:30)ffs in the original suit, are before this Court assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The suit for declara(cid:30)on in respect of the property in dispute was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27.02.2017. The appeal preferred by the appellants met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on 07.09.2021, thereby affirming the findings of the trial Court.

2. To challenge the aforesaid concurrent findings, the present appeal has been filed along with an applica(cid:30)on bearing CM-5957-C-2025 under Sec(cid:30)on 5 of the Limita(cid:30)on Act, 1963, seeking condona(cid:30)on of an inordinate delay of 1200 days.

3. In the applica(cid:30)on, it has been pleaded that the counsel who represented the appellants before the Court below did not inform them about the passing of the judgment. It is further stated that the appellants came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only in the last week of April, 2025, when they contacted the said counsel, wherea4er they immediately engaged a counsel at the High Court and took steps to file the present appeal. On this premise, it is urged that the delay was neither inten(cid:30)onal nor wilful and deserves to be condoned.

4. A4er considering the contents of the applica(cid:30)on and hearing learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds no jus(cid:30)fica(cid:30)on to condone such an enormous delay. It is well se7led that while the expression “sufficient cause” under Sec(cid:30)on 5 of the Limita(cid:30)on Act is to receive a liberal construc(cid:30)on, the same does not extend to condoning gross negligence, inac(cid:30)on, or lack of bona fides on the part of a li(cid:30)gant. The law of limita(cid:30)on is founded on public policy and is intended to ensure certainty and finality in li(cid:30)ga(cid:30)on. A party seeking condona(cid:30)on of delay must, therefore, furnish a plausible and convincing explana(cid:30)on covering the en(cid:30)re period of delay.

5. In the present case, the explana(cid:30)on furnished is wholly inadequate. The sole ground taken is that the counsel did not inform the appellants about the decision. Even if such an asser(cid:30)on is assumed to be correct for the sake of argument, the appellants’ own pleadings disclose that they made no effort whatsoever to contact their counsel for more than three years a4er the decision dated 07.09.2021. The appellants were duly represented by an Advocate both before the trial Court as well as before the first Appellate Court, and it was incumbent upon them to remain vigilant about the progress and outcome of their case. A li(cid:30)gant cannot be permi7ed to remain completely indifferent to the status of his case for years together and then seek indulgence of the Court by a7ribu(cid:30)ng the delay to the alleged omission of counsel.

6. The prolonged silence and inac(cid:30)on on the part of the appellants (cid:30)ll the last week of April, 2025 clearly reflects gross negligence. Such unexplained and prolonged inac(cid:30)on cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be treated as a bona fide or uninten(cid:30)onal delay. The explana(cid:30)on offered neither inspires confidence nor sa(cid:30)sfies the test of “sufficient cause” as contemplated under Sec(cid:30)on 5 of the Limita(cid:30)on Act.

7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the huge delay of 1200 days in filing the appeal is wholly unjus(cid:30)fied and does not deserve to be condoned. Consequently, the applica(cid:30)on for condona(cid:30)on of delay is dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the appeal itself stan