##PAGE1##

FAO-5985-2023 Page 1 of 7

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242

FAO-5985-2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 22.04.2026

Smt. Seema & Others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Raj Kumar & Others

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Ms. Riya Malik, Advocate

for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-20439-CII-2023

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 4960 days in filing the appeal.

The reason for condonation of such inordinate delay in filing the

present appeal is mentioned in Para 2 of the application, which is as under:-

“2. That it is factual position of the aforesaid matter that the

applicants/appellants engaged the counsel for filing the appeal

in the year 2008 within time for filing the aforesaid appeal and

thereafter counsel filed the said appeal on 21.04.2008. But in

aforesaid matter registry raised objection as No.200451 titled as

"Seema and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others" (Advocate Name

Sanjay Vij, P-170-1985) on 05.08.2008. Due to bonafide mistake,

the aforesaid counsel could not file the aforesaid appeal within

SUNENA

2026.04.24 12:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-5985-2023 Page 2 of 7

(cid:1)

time and not clear the aforesaid objection. Therefore, in view of

above said, poor applicants/appellants should not be sufferer of

the mistake on part of the counsel… … …”

The above-said explanation given by the applicants/appellants

is at mostly vague, cryptic and does not constitute sufficient cause to

condone the inordinate delay of 4960 days in filing the appeal. The applicant

cannot seek to circumvent the extraordinary and most inordinate of 4960

days by conveniently laying the entire blame upon the learned counsel. It has

become a most reprehensible trend amongst litigants to seek to absolve

themselves of entire responsibility to cover their carelessness in pursuing the

litigation. In this regard, reference may be made to judgment of the Delhi

High Court in “Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd.,

(Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 887148, wherein it has been held that:

“11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is

also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial

proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated

at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the

entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being

attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay

condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or

written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake

up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court

is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting

the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as

if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the

proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/

applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and

ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple

or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company

SUNENA

2026.04.24 12:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

FAO-5985-2023 Page 3 of 7

(cid:1)

managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where

their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case

diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in

the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without

caring as to what different frivolous pleas/defences being taken

by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant

does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of

the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is

liable to bear the consequences.”

Moreover, 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,

therefor