Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Ludhiana Improvement Trust – Appellant
Versus
Gurdeep Singh – Respondent
RSA-470-2018 (O&M)
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Limitation and Appellate Practice
Act Referred
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: S.151, O.41 R.33
Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983: R.7(4)
Headnote
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 33 - Second Appeal - Maintainability - Findings of Trial Court not challenged in First Appeal attain finality - Second appeal directly against findings of Trial Court that have not been challenged before the First Appellate Court is not maintainable. (Para 14-16)
(C) Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules - Rule 7(4) - Applicability - Rule amended in 2016 - No provision for retrospective application to transaction occurring earlier - Cannot be invoked to demand double market price for excess area against a decree of the Trial Court. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell plot of land. Trial Court decreed the suit, directing the developer to transfer the plot and increased area to the plaintiff at the original allotment price. The developer did not appeal this judgment. Following a First Appellate Court judgment dismissing an appeal by another defendant, the developer filed this Second Appeal after an inordinate delay of 1463 days.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the appeal both on grounds of inordinate, unexplained delay in filing under the Limitation Act and on merits, ruling that the developer, having failed to challenge the Trial Court's initial decree, could not maintain a Second Appeal against those findings.
Issues: Whether a 1463-day delay should be condoned and whether a Second Appeal is maintainable against a Trial Court decree that was never challenged before the First Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The law of limitation requires each day's delay to be explained, and in the absence of valid reasons, the court will not exercise discretion; furthermore, a litigant cannot bypass the appellate hierarchy to challenge a decree that has already attained finality due to their own failure to appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kavita Arora
For the Respondents: Yogesh Goel, Vishal
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of inordinate delay requires logical and cogent justification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. a party cannot file a second appeal against an unchallenged initial decree. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. dismissal of appeal on grounds of delay and lack of maintainability. (Para 19 , 20) |
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-1185-C-2018
Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 74 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.
2. Heard.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 74 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.
CM-1186-C-2018
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 1463 days in filing accompanying appeal.
2. Ld. counsel for the applicant/appellant inter alia submits that delay of 1463 days in filing the present appeal has occurred on account of the reasons as given in paras 3 and 4 of the present application, which read as under: -
“3. That now the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 came to deposit the price of the increased area of 49.45 sq. yards @ Rs. 250 PSY, the appellant Trust found that the calculation of value of the increased area was in violation of the Rule 7 (4) of the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) (Amendment) Rules, 2016, which provided that the price of the increased area shall be double the market value or double the last auction price in any scheme in such area whichever is higher.
4. That in view of the above, on getting an opinion from its counsel, the Trust has decided to file the present appeal against the judgment & decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by ADJ, Ludhiana.”
3. It is submitted that, therefore, for the above reasons, delay of 1463 days has been occasioned.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant/appellant and submits that suit of the plaintiff was duly decreed by learned Trial Court. Against the same, no Civil Appeal was filed by the present appellant/defendant No.3. It is submitted that the present Appeal has been filed by defendant No.3 only against the judgment of learned First Appellate Court. Judgment of learned Trial Court was never challenged by the present appellant. Furthermore, no cogent reasons have been given for condoning such extraordinary delay.
5. Heard.
6. I find merit in the above contentions of ld. counsel for plaintiff.
7. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant for condonation of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without any justification.
8. In recent years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the malaise of lackadaisical litigants. The Apex Court has also taken due note of the fact that over a period of time, rights of parties get crystallised. Reference is made to recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2537649, decided on 03.04.2024, the relevant para of which are as under:-
“26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should b
