IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CM-4568-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-27-2020 (O&M) in RSA-1066-1987 (O&M) Reserved on 03.12.2025 Pronounced on:11.12.2025 Uploaded on :-11.12.2025 Rai Sahib (since deceased) through LRs and Another ....Appellants VERSUS Karam Singh (since deceased) through LRs and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. S.S.Swaich, Advocate and Ms. Ishani Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4.

Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. G.S.Punia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.S.Punia, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for respondent No.7.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

CM-4568-C-2020

1. The applicants/appellants have filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 488 days in filing the accompanying review application. The case set up by the applicants is that they could not earlier file the review application as they came to know about the decision dated 28.03.2019 only upon being informed in the second week of July, 2020 by one Sarwan Singh, an appellant in the connected matter. It is further pleaded that thereafter they immediately contacted their counsel, applied for the certified copies of the judgment as well as the power of attorney, and upon obtaining the same, the present review application was filed without any further delay. It is asserted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that refusal to condone the delay would cause grave prejudice and irreparable loss to the applicants.

2. The respondents have filed a detailed reply opposing the application. It has been pointed out that the story put forth by the applicants is concocted and that they were fully aware of the passing of the judgment on 28.03.2019 since their engaged counsel had appeared and argued the matter at length on that date. It is also the stand of the respondents that the explanation given for the delay is wholly unsatisfactory, contradictory in material particulars, and that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone such an inordinate delay.

3. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. It is settled law that while considering an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court is required to adopt a justice-oriented approach. The length of delay is not, by itself, decisive, what is material is whether the explanation furnished discloses a sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from approaching the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, provided the explanation is not tainted with mala fides or an attempt to deliberately delay the proceedings.

4. In the present case, although the explanation put forth by the applicants is not free from inconsistencies and may not inspire full confidence, yet it cannot be ignored that the matter pertains to an old litigation involving family members and the delay does not appear to be intentional or actuated by mala fide motives. The respondents have alleged that the applicants were aware of the decision from the very beginning, however, the applicants have taken a specific stand that they came to know only later, and this assertion, though doubtful, cannot be conclusively disbelieved at this preliminary stage.

5. More importantly, refusal to condone the delay would result in non- adjudication of the review application altogether, which may cause serious prejudice to the applicants. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that unless gross negligence or deliberate inaction is clearly established, the Court should lean towards ensuring adjudication on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice on technicalities of limitation.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position and examining the explanat