IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-1972-C-2026 in/and RA-RS-9-2026 in RSA-4204-2013 Date of decision :-07.03.2026 Tej Singh …..Applicant-appellant Versus Trilok Singh …..Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Nisha Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

CM-1972-C-2026

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation seeking condonation of delay of 272 days in filing the accompanying review application.

2. In the said application, it has been stated that the delay of 272 days has been occasioned on account of the fact that the review applicant had been pursuing his remedy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has further been acknowledged that although the SLP filed by the applicant had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 6.10.2025, however, even thereafter, the filing of the present review application was delayed by ‘a little over two months’ for the reason that the applicant is an aged person and took some time to collect the record.

3. The said reason does not constitute a cogent or plausible explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 272 days in filing the present review-application. The cryptic explanation furnished by the applicant does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’. In recent years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the malaise of lackadaisical litigants. It is to be appreciated that over a period of time the rights of the parties get crystallised. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; as it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. This is the very purpose of the law of limitation.Delay in pursuing a remedy is prejudicial to the rights of the other party. The Apex Court has also taken due note of the fact that over a period of time, rights of parties get crystallised. Reference in this regard is made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (SC) :

Law Finder Doc Id # 2537649, decided on 03.04.2024, as under:-

“25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

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