IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 SHAKUNTLA AND ORS .... Appellants VERSUS BALWAN AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Sandeep Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants herein was partly decreed. Aggrieved by the same two appeals were preferred - one by the plaintiff-appellants and one by defendant-respondent No.3. Both the said appeals were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

2. The present regular second appeal has been filed along with an application being CM-13454-C-2023 for condonation of delay of 528 days in filing the appeal. In para No.4 of the application it has been stated that in the month of February 2021 the plaintiff-appellant No.1 suffered from Covid-19 and thereafter it has been stated that now in the month of November 2023 the plaintiff-appellant No.1 had recovered and had gone to Rohtak to inquire about the appeal and she was surprised to learn that the appeal had been dismissed. Certified copy was obtained and accordingly the present regular second appeal was filed. No medical record has been appended with the appeal to show that the plaintiff-appellant No.1 remained bed-ridden from February 2021 to November 2023. Infact, there is no explanation in para No.4 as to why the appeal was not filed from February 2021 to November 2023 except for stating that in February 2021 the plaintiff-appellant No.1 suffered from Covid-

19.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR [2024 (2) RCR (Civil) 571] has held as under :

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the `Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants’.

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969] has held as under :

“59. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time,