IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4725 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 24.09.2025 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ....Appellants Versus Jitesh Mittal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate for the appellants.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM No.15153-CII of 2025

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in re-filing the instant appeal.

2. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicants/appellants have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

3. Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

20 days in re-filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

CM No.15154-CII of 2025

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 2013 days in filing the present appeal.

2. The only explanation that has been offered seeking condonation of delay, reads as under:

“2. That it is submitted that the above said appeal was to be filed within limitation to be calculated from the date of passing of the judgment and the date of delivery of certified copy of the judgment. However, the same could not be filed within aforesaid stipulated time inasmuch as the judgment passed by the Learned Court was required to be perused at the level of the Department and legal opinions in this regard were to be sought.

3. That it is further respectfully submitted that certain documents in support of the claim of the appellant were also to be checked and verified from concerned branches, thereafter, necessary approvals of the department was to be obtained. The aforesaid action was a time consuming exercise and as such a delay of 2013 days occurred in filing the present appeal.

4. That the delay of 2013 days in filing the present appeal is not intentional, however a bonafide delay and as such the same may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be heard on merits.”

3. The issue regarding interpretation of ‘sufficient cause’ as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the State lethargy, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others - Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) decided on 12.09.2025. Supreme Court after considering the entire thread of precedents, laid down the following parameters :

“xxx xxx xxx

261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pai