The failure to provide sufficient justification for extensive delays in legal proceedings demonstrates a lack of bona fide intentions and can result in denial of condonation, affirming the importance of adherence to statutory time limits.

1. Leave granted. In these appeals the challenge is to the common order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 16-12-2013 in Nahar Exports Ltd. v. Hardeep Kaur1. There were as many as 22 regular first appeals numbered as RFA No. 268 of 2012 to RFA No. 288 of 2012 and RFA No. 319 of 2012 in which the above miscellaneous petitions were filed. In each of these appeals, there were two miscellaneous petitions, one for condoning the delay of 9 days in filing the first appeals and another for condoning the delay of 1727 days in refiling those appeals.

2. By the impugned order, the High Court by stating that for the reasons stated in the applications and subject to payment of cost of Rs 50,000 to the counsel appearing for the respondents in those applications within one week, the delay of 9 days in filing the appeals and 1727 days in refiling the appeals was condoned and the applications were disposed of.

3. Simultaneously, the regular first appeals were admitted for hearing. It was also noted therein that since there were connected 22 regular first appeals already preferred by the respondents in those miscellaneous petitions which were admitted for hearing and since the questions involved were common in both sets of appeals, the High Court directed the appeals in which delay was condoned to be tagged along with those appeals numbered as RFA No. 219 of 2008 and 21 other appeals for hearing on 29-4-2014. Aggrieved by such condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeals, the appellant(s) have come forward with these appeals before this Court.

4. Before us, Mr Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant(s) contended that the High Court seriously erred in condoning the long delay of 1727 days in refiling the appeals apart from condoning the delay of 9 days in filing the appeals, without initially satisfying itself as to whether there was any cause, much less sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the judgment impugned was dated 30-5-2007 and the appeals were filed on 6-9-2007 on which date there was a delay of 9 days, that these appeals were presented by the respondents without payment of any Court Fee, that when the appeal papers were returned for complying with various defects, in the year 2008, the respondents filed the scrutiny charges on 11-4-2008, as per Receipt No. 73 dated 11-4-2008. That while on the one hand, no reason, much less sufficient cause was shown for the enormous delay of 1727 days in the matter of refiling of the appeal papers, according to him when the appeals were presented without payment of Court Fee and without appropriate application for condoning the delay of 9 days, which was mandatory as stipulated under O.41 R.3 - A of the Code of Civil Procedure , the appellant(s) cannot be heard to say that the appeals were filed in time. The learned Senior Counsel by referring to the Appellate Side Rules of the Delhi High Court, in particular, the amended R.5(3), wherein it is stipulated that once the appeal papers are returned for complying with any defects and such papers are not refiled within the time granted by the Registry, the maximum of which is only 30 days, such delay in the matter of refiling would result in treating the filing of the appeals on any subsequent date as fresh filing, in which event the delay involved would be 1825 days in filing the appeals themselves.

5. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that though it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the counsel who initially filed the appeals committed default in not filing the appeals in time, as well as, in not representing the papers after it was returned and failed to furnish the requisite details as to when and what d