IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-3815-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 GAGANDEEP SINGH ....Appellant(s)

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the appellant.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

CM-9381-LPA-2025

1. The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1287 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although there is a delay of 1287 days in filing the appeal, but the same was not on account of any negligence on the part of the applicant but it was because of certain reasons mentioned in the present application. He submitted that the writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed by learned Single Bench on 20.04.2022 whereby the applicant was seeking selection to the post of Constable. He submitted that the dispute was with regard to the height of the applicant, however, as per the order dated 20.04.2022, the height of the applicant was re-measured by the Medical Board of General Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh, which was measured at 05' 10.2” and accordingly, he was awarded 13 marks. He further submitted that the applicant filed a review application before the learned Single Judge, which was also dismissed on 01.07.2024 and it was thereafter that he decided to file the present intra-Court appeal, in which the delay has occurred.

3. While referring to the application for condonation of delay, learned counsel further submitted that one of the reasons for the delay was that the applicant had engaged a counsel for filing of the present intra-court appeal and the said counsel who was engaged in July 2024 collected all the documents for filing of the appeal but the applicant was not informed with regard to the status of the appeal and it was only after a lapse of more than one year i.e. in November 2025 that the applicant after making telephonic calls to the learned counsel came to know that the said counsel had unfortunately passed away on 30.08.2025 which was also one of the reasons for not filing the present appeal within time. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application for condonation of delay may be allowed and the delay may be condoned.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the present application for condonation of delay.

5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the applicant on 20.04.2022. It was thereafter that a review application was filed by the applicant, which was also with a delay of 699 days and that was the primary reason for the dismissal of the said review application by the Single Bench on 01.07.2024. Thereafter, when the applicant was to file the present intra-court appeal, there was again a large delay and for that period, the justification put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the applicant had engaged a counsel but since the said counsel had passed away, the appeal could not be filed within time.

6. However, a perusal of the present application for condonation of delay would show that even after the engagement of the counsel, more than one year had elapsed before the filing of the present appeal and therefore, it cannot be said that the delay was solely attributable to negligence of the counsel, who otherwise had unfortunately passed away.

7. For the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant is required to show sufficient cause. The scope of the expression “sufficient cause” has also been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. Even if the delay was caused on account of the demise of the learned counsel engaged by the applicant, the aforesaid aspect can be taken into consideration only when the delay pertains to a short spell of time. However, in the present case, the applicant himsel