IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7761-2025 DECIDED ON: 31.10.2025 SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS .....PETITIONERS VERSUS GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KALPI .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate and Ms. Anjali Bangar, Advocate for the petitioners.

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, and 20.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the petitioners’ application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order dismissing their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was declined, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

2. Briefly stated that the petitioners–plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction titled as “Sandeep Kumar & Others vs. Gram Panchayat, Village Kalpi” before the learned trial Court at Ambala seeking to restrain the respondent–Gram Panchayat from interfering in their alleged peaceful possession over the suit property situated in Abadi Deh of Village Kalpi. Alongside, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed for interim protection.

3. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 28.05.2025, declined to grant of ad-interim injunction holding that there existed no prima facie ground to restrain the Gram Panchayat at that stage, though keeping all rights and contentions open to be adjudicated after completion of pleadings. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The learned Appellate Court, however, vide impugned order dated 20.10.2025, dismissed the condonation application and consequently the appeal as time-barred. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Since the issue relates only to the condonation of delay, notice to the respondent is not considered necessary.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. The record shows that the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 was duly challenged by the petitioners after obtaining certified copies and explaining the delay as occasioned by bona fide reasons. The explanation offered by the petitioners cannot be termed as either deliberate or negligent.

6. It is a settled principle that the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice rather than defeat it on technical grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Collector (L.A.) Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji’, AIR 1987 SC 1353, has held that when delay is neither mala fide nor intentional, courts should lean towards condoning it, particularly where refusal to do so would cause miscarriage of justice.

7. In the present case, the Lower Appellate Court, while dismissing the condonation application, adopted an unduly technical view and failed to appreciate that the consequence of its order was to non-suit the petitioners without their appeal being heard on merits. Such a rigid approach defeats the cause of justice, particularly in matters involving injunctions where rights of possession and enjoyment are directly affected.

8. This Court finds that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by the petitioners and that the learned Lower Appellate Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing to condone the same. The impugned order dated 20.10.2025 is, therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal against the trial Court’s order dated 28.05.2025 stands condoned.

10. The impugned order dated 20.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, is he