##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR-22-2026 Date of Decision:25.08.2026

The Bholath Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. ...Petitioner

Versus Kuldeep Kumar and others ...Respondents

Reserved on:24.08.2026 Pronounced on: 25.08.2026

Pronounced Fully/Operative Part:

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. H.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate, for the respondent N: 1/ Caveator.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The petitioners-defendants are before this Court assailing the order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.09.2019, passed by learned Additional Civil

Judge (Sr. Division), Kapurthala has been dismissed.

2. The respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking declaration in respect of his retiral benefits, arrears of pay, increments and consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The Civil Suit No.211 was instituted on 16.08.2016. The petitioners entered appearance through counsel, filed written statement and contested the suit. Issues were framed and the parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. The record further shows that the case was subsequently transferred from Kapurthala to Bholath. Even after such transfer, counsel appearing for the petitioners continued to appear and, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court, appeared till 30.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners ceased to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. The

suit ultimately came to be decreed on 09.09.2019 (Annexure P3).

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.08.25 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-22-2026 2026:PHHC:118233

3. The petitioners subsequently sought to challenge the decree by way of an appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Their explanation essentially was that the counsel earlier engaged by them had failed to inform them about the proceedings after transfer of the case and that they came to know of the decree only upon receipt of process in

execution proceedings.

4. The learned Appellate Court, after permitting the parties to lead evidence on the question of limitation, has returned categorical findings against the petitioners. It has noticed that no date, month or year was disclosed as to when the petitioners allegedly came to know of the decree through the execution proceedings. No execution record or process allegedly served upon the petitioners was produced. Even the solitary witness examined on behalf of the petitioners could not substantiate the asserted

date of knowledge.

5. More importantly, the learned Appellate Court has noticed circumstances, which materially belie the plea of want of knowledge. The petitioners had not been strangers to the litigation. They had filed written statement, participated in the trial and their witnesses had been cross- examined on their behalf. Their counsel had also continued to appear after transfer of the matter to Bholath till 30.03.2019. The evidence further disclosed that the concerned office-bearers of the Society were aware of the

litigation and its outcome.

6. The explanation that the lapse was entirely attributable to the earlier counsel, therefore, cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause in the facts of the present case. It is one thing to say that a litigant was prevented from prosecuting a matter on account of circumstances beyond his control; it is quite another to remain inactive after having actively contested the proceedings and thereafter seek to revive the matter after a substantial lapse of time without establishing the precise date on which knowledge of the

decree was allegedly acquired.

7. Section 5 of the Limitation Act undoubtedly confers discretion upon the Court to condone delay where sufficient cause is shown. The

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.08.25 15:29 I a