Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures A.O. No.183 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellant.

2. The present Appeal From Order has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Dehradun, whereby the appellant’s application for condonation of delay dated 04.05.2023, the application for setting aside abatement dated 04.05.2023 and the substitution application dated 04.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No.135 of 2016 came to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that ever since the COVID-19 pandemic, the health of the appellant/ defendant remained precarious, due to which he could not remain in regular touch with his counsel and, consequently, the factum of death of respondent no.1/plaintiff in September, 2022 did not come to his knowledge. It is argued that only in the last week of April, 2023, when the appellant contacted his counsel, he was informed about the death of respondent no.1, whereafter the particulars of the legal heirs were collected and, without any further avoidable delay, the delay condonation application, application for setting aside abatement, and substitution application were filed in May, 2023.

4. Having considered the submissions and perused the material on record, this Court is satisfied that the delay, sufficiently explained by the appellant’s ill health during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and his bona fide ignorance of the death of respondent no.1, constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123. The Supreme Court has emphasized that length of delay is not material; what matters is the acceptability of the explanation offered.

5. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court finds that the delay of a few months in moving the applications was neither deliberate nor motivated by malice. The explanation offered being bona fide and reasonable, the rejection of the appellant’s applications by the court below cannot be sustained.

6. Accordingly, the Appeal From Order is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No.135 of 2016 is set aside. The appellant’s application for condonation of delay dated 04.05.2023, the application for setting aside abatement dated 04.05.2023, and the substitution application dated 04.05.2023 are allowed. The delay in filing the said applications is condoned, the abatement is set aside, and the legal heirs of respondent no.1 are taken on record as respondents in the pending Civil Appeal. The learned Appellate Court is directed to restore Civil Appeal No.135 of 2016 to its original number and to proceed to decide the same on merits, in