IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221 FAO-8706-2015(O&M)

Date of decision: 22.04.2026 Naresh Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sunil Devi & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate Mr. Sagar Dangi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.7.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-27610-CII-2015 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 100 days in re-filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of learned counsel for the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 100 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

(cid:1) CM-27611-CII-2015 This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant/owner of the offending vehicle under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1605 days in filing the appeal. Reason for seeking condonation of such inordinate delay is given in Para 2 of the present application that: -

“2. That the impugned award dated 25.01.2011 passed by the ld. Tribunal Rewari. It is pertinent to mention here that the above mentioned award was decided ex-parte, because appellant was not appeared before the ld. Tribunal as he was not properly served in the correct address and appellant has not knowledge about the decision of the impugned award.

3. That appellant came to know about the decision of the case award only on 26.04.2014 when Sh. Virender Sharma, Advocate, Rewri came to know about the proceedings of attachment in the ex-parte proceedings before the Court of Sh. Ajay Tewatia, ADJ, as MACT, Rewari.”

The above cited reason does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 1605 days in filing the present appeal. It has been stated by the applicant/appellant himself that he had come to know of the impugned Award on 26.04.2014; yet present appeal has been filed by the appellant only on 14.09.2015 i.e. more than one-and-a-half years later. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. Reference judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Others” Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025.

In recent years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the malaise of lackadaisical litigants. It is to be appreciated that over a period of time the rights of the parties get crystallised. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; as it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. The Apex Court has also taken due note of the fact that over a period of time, rights of parties get crystallised. Reference in this regard is made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2537649, decided on 03.04.2024, as under:-

“25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for in