IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Chander Mohan ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Pawan Kumar and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the appellant.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-5329-C-2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 285 days in refiling the appeal.

2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 285 days delay in refiling the appeal is as under:-

“2. That present appeal was filed on 02.06.2022 and registry raised some objections, thereafter, clerk of the counsel collected the paper book, but inadvertently, he put in another decided case i.e. CR 7995 of 2019 which was disposed of on 31.05.2022 by this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, thorough search was made to find the paper book. Now, it has been found, but in this process delay of 285 days has been occurred. The delay in refilling the appeal is not intentional rather due to the facts stated above.”

3. The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 285 days in refiling the present appeal.

4. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification.

5. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 285 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.

RSA-1442-2023 (O&M)

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for joint possession of suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellant in the plaint that Bagga Mal, was common ancestor of the parties and he was owner in possession of the suit land. After the death of Bagga Mal, the property had fallen to the share of Chiranji Lal, who was great grandfather of the plaintiff. It was alleged that on the death of Chiranji Lal, suit property devolved upon Ram Parkash by way of survivorship; whereafter Darshan Kumar/defendant No.5, Anoop Kumar/defendant No.2, Ramesh Kumar/defendant No.4 and Pawan Kumar/defendant No.1 i.e. all sons of Ram Parkash son of Chiranji Lal; and Kamal Kumar inherited the suit property. It was averred that plaintiff is the son of Darshan Kumar; and grandson of Ram Parkash and is therefore one of the coparcerenes and is entitled to his share in the suit property. It was alleged that however, defendant No.1/Pawan Kumar is alleging one Will dated 21.01.1999 in his favour, which is forged. Hence, present suit was filed for joint possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction on 22.05.2007.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2015. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2022. Hence, present second appeal by plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by lea