Inordinate delay of 708 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act when the party was aware of the order and participated in subsequent proceedings, and the medical explanation lacks credibility and bona fides.

Reserved on 25.09.2025 Delivered on 09.10.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No. 142 of 2025

With

Delay Condonation Application (IA 2 of 2025)

(under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963)

Kalyani Sandugu ………..Appellant/defendant

Versus

Satya Kumar Rao ….….Respondent/plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

The appeal from order has been preferred

against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Original Suit No. 68 of 2021, whereby the temporary injunction application filed by respondent/plaintiff has

been allowed.

2. There is a delay of 708 days’ in filing the present appeal from order. A delay condonation application (IA No. 2 of 2025) has been filed by the appellant/defendant to condone the delay of 708 days in

filing the appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that that the appellant has been suffering from severe motor paralysis and respiratory ailments and was hospitalized for a prolonged period, rendering her physically and mentally incapable of participating in the

proceedings of the original suit. He would further submit that the appellant is a single mother with a minor child and has no other family members to assist her in contesting the suit. Consequently, she could not execute a power of attorney to any person for pursuing the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the appellant was not provided proper legal advice to file the present appeal in a timely manner; that, the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional, and the same should be condoned to advance justice.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposed the delay condonation application, submitting that the appellant/defendant has taken a false and frivolous ground to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in O.S. No. 68 of 2021. It was contended that the appellant/defendant is attempting to misuse the process of the Court to further an ulterior motive, thereby causing unnecessary hindrance in the proceedings of the suit. The appellant/defendant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has raised a frivolous plea for condonation of delay.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that O.S. No. 68 of 2021 had been proceeded with ex-parte against the appellant/defendant vide order dated 22.03.2023 by the learned trial court. Subsequently, the appellant/defendant filed an application seeking recall of the said order, to which the respondent/plaintiff filed detailed objections, including additional objections. The learned trial court, by its order dated 30.05.2023, rejected the recall application, observing that while the appellant/defendant was shown to be appearing before the Court on a wheelchair, photographs indicated her attendance at a function in the Ashram a few days prior. The Court further noted that although the appellant/defendant had put in appearance through counsel, she subsequently filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2022. The trial court, in the same order, observed that the grounds raised by the appellant/defendant in seeking recall of the ex-parte order did not appear bona fide and that it seemed the appellant/defendant was interested in unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings of the suit.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would further submit that subsequent to the order dated 30.05.2023, the appellant/defendant preferred Revision No. 99 of 2023 before this Court, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 10.09.2024. By the said order, the