IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 19.02.2026 Charanjit Kaur ... Appellant(s)

Versus Chairman, UHBVNL & Anr ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2014 passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein was dismissed.

2. The present regular second appeal has been filed along with applications being CM-4454-C-2021 for condonation of delay of 1910 days in filing the appeal and CM-4451-C-2021 for condonation of delay of 197 days in refiling the appeal. In para No.2 of the application (CM-4454-C-2021) it has been stated that the appellant is a very poor lady and had no source of income and she had filed the suit alongwith the pauper application and the same was allowed by the Court vide order dated 12.01.2010. She also filed the first appeal as well as this appeal as pauper. It has further been stated that the appellant was not informed by her counsel about the decision of the appeal and whenever she visited the chamber of her counsel either the counsel or his clerk informed her that her case is yet to be decided and communicated her false dates. Thereafter, on 02.04.2019 she came to know about the fact that the appeal had been dismissed. Despite repeated requests to give her the brief, the counsel did not deliver the same. Thereafter, after arranging the documents through another clerk the appellant obtained the certified copy on 22.07.2019 and filed the present appeal with the aforementioned delay.

3. 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, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. [2025 (4) RCR (Civil) 134] 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 n