Ram Lavat vs Ram Padarath (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 27 October, 2026
th
Date of Decision: 06 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010755102025
+ RSA 157/2025
RAM LAVAT .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shivnath Bind, Mr. N.P. Singh,
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Deora, Mr. Wakil
Kumar and Ms. Bushra Khatun,
Advocates.
versus
RAM PADARATH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tushar K. and Mr. Shubham,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
O R D E R
CM APPL. 62283/2025 (for condonation of delay in filing) in RSA
157/2025
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), seeking
condonation of delay of 2023 days in filing the present Regular Second
Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th November, 2019, passed
by the learned Additional District Judge-04, East District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi, in RCA/DJ No. 358/2016.
Signature Not Verified
RSA 157/2025 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:NAMITA
DHYANI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:07:48

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had
th
initially filed the second appeal on 16 March, 2020. However, the said
appeal could not be effectively pursued and remained under defects on
account of the unfortunate demise of Mr. Kohli of SAV Law Associates, the
law firm representing the appellant, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Consequently, the appellant was not updated about the status of the appeal
th
and became aware of the same only upon receipt of notice dated 05 July,
2025, in the Execution Proceedings. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but
occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the
present application is without any merits and it is liable to be dismissed as
the appellant has failed to disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of
unreasonable delay in filing the appeal.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15th
November, 2019. By way of the present application, the appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 2023 days in filing the appeal.
6. The principles of law governing condonation of delay under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963, have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs & Ors. v. The Special
th
Deputy Collector (LA) , reported as 2024 INSC 286 and decided on 06
April, 2026. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
said judgment are as under:
“23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Signature Not Verified
RSA 157/2025 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:NAMITA
DHYANI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:07:48

this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be
exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also
observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of
the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed
under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law
as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on
equitable grounds.
24. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid
decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which
equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal
approach and in implementing the statute as it stands.
“ 12 . It is a settled legal proposition that law of
limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the
period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result
flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A
Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve
what it considers a distress resulting from its
operation." The statutory provision may cause
hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the
court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to
the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which
means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands
attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been
held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to
be considered while interpreting a statute.”
25. This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide
paragraph 15 went on to observe as under:
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to
the effect that where a case has been presented in the
court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain
the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which
means an adequate and enough reason which
Signature Not Verified
RSA 157/2025 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:NAMITA
DHYANI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:07:48

prevented him to approach the court within limitation.
In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of
bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of
the case, or found to have not acted diligently or
remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground
to condone the delay. No court could be justified in
condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any
condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided
only within the parameters laid down by this Court in
regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was
no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the
court on time condoning the delay without any
justification, putting any condition whatsoever,
amounts to passing an order in violation of the
statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing
utter disregard to the legislature.”
(emphasis supplied)
26 . On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law,
as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident
that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should
be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather
than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed
of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a
fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed
differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense
whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal
approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial
justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat
the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the
Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the
delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of
power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if
sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where
Signature Not Verified
RSA 157/2025 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:NAMITA
DHYANI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:07:48

there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it
does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if
the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in
filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in
condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the
parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the
delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed,
tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.”
7. In the present case, the appellant seeks to explain the delay on the
th
ground that the appeal, which was initially filed on 16 March, 2020, could
not be pursued on account of the mis-communication by the previous
Counsel regarding the status of the appeal. However, there is nothing on
record to show that the appellant had made any efforts to ascertain the status
of the appeal or had taken any sincere steps to ensure that the defects in the
initially filed appeal were cured and the appeal was duly pursued. There is
also no material placed on record to establish any communication between
the appellant and the concerned law firm during the relevant period. The
appellant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be
equally vigilant about the status of that appeal. It shows absolute negligence
and inaction on the part of the appellant. The appellant has failed to show
adequate and enough reason to explain the delay of 2023 days from the date
of the passing of the judgment and the date of filing of the present appeal.
This is a case demonstrating absolute lack of due diligence. Accordingly,
this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to show any
sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the present
appeal. There is no merit in the present application, which is hereby
Signature Not Verified
RSA 157/2025 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:NAMITA
DHYANI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:07:48

dismissed.
RSA 157/2025 & CM APPL. 62282/2025
8. In view of the dismissal of the application bearing CM APPL.
62283/2025, the present Regular Second Appeal, along with the pending
application (s) stands dismissed.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/ MR/TP
Signature Not Verified
RSA 157/2025 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:NAMITA
DHYANI
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:07:48