NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-5951-CII-2025

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC is for condonation of delay of 661 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. It is inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the delay of 661 days in filing the present appeal has occurred on account of the fact that the applicants are poor and rustic villagers who are not acquainted with the legal intricacies of law. It is submitted that even the learned counsel for the applicants had misled the applicants and regularly told them that their appeal is in progress. However, applicants have subsequently discovered that the appeal had not been filed. Now, the applicants have engaged the undersigned counsel for further proceedings. It is submitted that applicants had no means of earning and did not know the limitation period of filing the appeal. The delay has occurred in arranging litigation expenses. It is accordingly, prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay of 661 days in filing the appeal be condoned.

3. Heard.

4. The applicants have sought condonation of inordinate delay of 661 days primarily on the ground that they did not have sufficient funds; and as the learned counsel had failed to inform the applicants regarding filing up the appeal. However, I find no merit in the said submissions: as despite repeated Court query, the counsel for the applicants has failed to inform as to on what date the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was released to the applicants. Thus, applicant has failed to prove that they did not have sufficient funds.

5. Even the second contention of the applicants that they were misled by their counsel is liable to be rejected. It is for the applicants to be diligent in pursuing the appeal. Duty lies upon the appellants to be vigilant towards their rights to pursue litigation diligently. The appellants cannot totally sleep upon the matter after allegedly entrusting the same to their counsel. In this situation, it would be apposite to refer 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 holding 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.”

6. Furthermore, it is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference is made to 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 applicants. No cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicants for condonation of such an inordinate delay in filing the accompanying appeal. Moreover, condonati