IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 Kanta Devi ... Appellant Versus Arjun Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Court of District Judge, Rewari, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2014 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, was dismissed.

2. The appeal is accompanied by an application (CM- 533-C-2023) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 1216 days’ delay in filing the appeal.

3. It has been asserted in the application that the instant appeal was filed in the Registry of this Court on 06.09.2022 and the same was returned with certain objections on 09.11.2022. It has further been averred that after removal of the said objections, the appeal was re-filed on 11.11.2022 and in this process the delay of 1216 days occurred.

4. It has further been mentioned that after the dismissal of the appeal by the first Appellate Court on 17.02.2017, when the applicant appellant had approached his counsel before the trial Court, he was informed that the file of the case had got misplaced and once the file was located, the same would be intimated to the applicant-appellant. It has further been averred that in the month of June, 2022, the Clerk to the counsel of the applicant-appellant had informed him that the file had been traced, whereupon the applicant-appellant collected the file in July, 2022. Thereafter, he had engaged the counsel to file the instant appeal, but by then, a delay of 1216 days had already occurred in filing the appeal.

5. Learned counsel representing the applicant- appellant, while reiterating the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, argues that the delay in filing the appeal, is neither intentional nor willful and rather, the same is due to the circumstances explained above. It is further argued that it is settled law that matters should not be decided on technicalities and rather, the same should be decided on merits.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, but find the same to be devoid of merit.

7. As per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if sufficient cause is shown for not preferring an appeal or an application (other than an application under the provisions of Order XXI CPC) within the prescribed period, the same may be admitted after the prescribed period as well. It is by now well settled that the Courts have to adopt a liberal approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. It is also well settled that normally, parties should be heard on merits and should not be non suited on technicalities. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 785, the Hon’ble Apex Court culled out the principles with regard to condonation of delay. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-

“From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-

oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is