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

CM-14509 & 14510-C-2025 in/and RSA-3944-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 19.02.2026 Hans Raj . . . . Appellant Vs.

Meena Bhanot and others . . . . Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Ashish Tewatia, Advocate, for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by plaintiff Sukh Ram (proforma respondent No.8 herein) was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.03.2012, whereby the said plaintiff along with proforma defendants No.11 to 19 including the present appellant (defendant No.12 Hans Raj) were held to be owners in possession to the extent of ½ share in the suit property. The trial Court further declared that defendants No.1 to 10 had no right, title or interest therein. The sale deed dated 15.12.1989 executed in favour of defendant No.1 and the subsequent transfers emanating therefrom, insofar as they related to the share of Roop Ram inherited by the plaintiff and proforma defendants, were also declared null, illegal and void.

2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 7 to 10 preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal vide judgment dated 01.11.2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2012 were set aside and the suit was dismissed.

3. Significantly, the original plaintiff did not challenge the said reversal. The present appeal has been filed by proforma defendant No.12 (Hans Raj). The appeal is accompanied by two applications bearing CM-14510-C-2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 seeking condonation of 158 days’

delay in filing the appeal, and CM-14509-C-2025 under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 3718 days’ delay in re-filing the appeal.

4. In the application seeking condonation of delay in filing, it has been pleaded that the litigation was being pursued by co-defendants and the appellant remained unaware of the appellate judgment, resulting in delay of

158 days.

5. In the application seeking condonation of delay in refiling, it is pleaded that the appeal was initially filed on 07.07.2015 and was returned by the Registry on 30.07.2015 with objections. After partial compliance and refiling on 19.02.2016, further objections were raised. Thereafter, the paper-book was allegedly taken back by the clerk of counsel and inadvertently placed in the bundle of decided cases, which came to light only on 02.11.2025, leading to delay of 3718 days. The application is supported by the affidavit of learned counsel.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and examining the material on record, this Court finds no sufficient cause to condone either the delay in filing or the extraordinary delay in refiling.

7. It is trite that while the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, but such liberality cannot extend to condoning gross negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (14) SCC 81 and Office of the Chief Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. And another, 2012 (3) SCC 563 has held that limitation cannot be defeated by casual and routine explanations and that a litigant must demonstrate reasonable diligence.

8. In the present case, the explanation for delay in filing that the matter was being pursued by co-defendants does not constitute sufficient cause. A litigant cannot abdicate responsibility to remain vigilant about his own case. The appellant has failed to explain the steps taken to ascertain the status of the appeal after the adverse appellate judgment.

9. The delay in refiling is far more serious. The explanation that the clerk inadvertently mixed the file with decided cases is wholly unsubstantiated. The name of the clerk has not even been disclosed and no m