Delhi Development Authority vs Sh. Manmohan Singh Bedi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 11 February, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 07 May, 2026
+ RFA 69/2023, CM APPL. 4030/2023 (delay) & 4544/2023 (stay)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Gaganmeet Singh
Sachdeva, Mr. Kuljeet Singh,
Mr. Harshpeet Singh Chadha and
Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advocates.
versus
SH. MANMOHAN SINGH BEDI
S/o Late Sh. H. S. Bedi,
R/o 7, Wazir Ali Building,
Ferozepur Cantt, Punjab. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Sonia A. Menon, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
CM APPL. 4030/2023:
1. An Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 ( hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act’ ) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ ) has been filed on behalf of the
Appellant Delhi Development Authority („ DDA ‟) seeking condonation of
delay of 1600 days, in filing the present Appeal .
2. It has been submitted in the Application that Appellant DDA is
RFA 69/2023 Page 1 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43

aggrieved by impugned Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the
learned ADJ in CS No.8536/2016. After passing of this Judgment, on
27.08.2018, the Appellant received the file along with Judgment from the
Counsel. For taking appropriate steps, file was examined by the Officials of
the Appellant for exploring the option either filing Appeal or mandatory /
necessary compliance, in terms of Judgment dated 08.06.2018.
3. A meeting took place on 16.11.2018, but thereafter, the file of the
case remained unattended till 24.12.2019. File was traced on the table of an
employee, who retired from service on 31.07.2019.
4. Thereafter, the file was submitted for taking appropriate action to
avoid contempt and Administrative Branch of the Appellant, could not take
decision to prefer Appeal. The matter was referred to the Legal Department
on 24.06.2021, who gave its opinion on 01.07.2021. Again, meeting was
convened on 11.10.2021 before the Commissioner, Housing and it was
agreed to prefer an Appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 08.06.2018
and case was assigned to the Counsel, who returned the file on 20.12.2022.
5. This decision to prefer the Appeal was taken on 02.01.2023, on the
ground that the acceptance of the Judgment would create a precedent, for no
fault of the Appellant. In addition, there is already CBI inquiry in allotment
of flats in these kinds of cases of wrong address policy and some
unscrupulous persons get allotment of flats, in connivance with DDA
Officials.
6. Accordingly, the Commissioner Housing reiterated on 02.01.2023 for
filing the Appeal and on the same day, the case was assigned to the Counsel,
who received the file on 09.01.2023. Thereafter, Appeal was drafted and
sent to the Appellant, for verification of facts and Appeal was filed at the
RFA 69/2023 Page 2 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43

earliest.
7. It is submitted that Appellant DDA is a statutory body and due to
petty lapses on the part of its functionary Officials of the Department, it
resulted into delay in filing this Appeal, which may be condoned, as DDA is
a Public Institution / Organization, which must not be not made to suffer.
Appellant is Government functionary and part of the State having obligation
and responsibility of wide areas and issues, on account of which, present
Appeal could not be filled in time. Though there is undue delay, the graceful
condonation of delay in view of not letting the State to suffer on account of
petty lapses on the part of individual functionaries, is not deniable. Hence,
delay of 1600 days may be condoned.
8. In support of this Application, Affidavits dated 02.05.2024 and
28.03.2025 have been filed on record, explaining the delay.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that delay cannot be
condoned in view of Judgments relied upon by her in her Written
Submissions.
10. The Respondent in the Written Submissions stated that the Appeal
has been filed with a delay of four years, against the Judgment dated
08.06.2018. The timeline by the Appellant shows long unexplained gaps and
vague reasons for delay such as:
(i) 80 days delay in receiving file from unnamed counsel;
(ii) 403 days delay when the file remained unattended;
(iii) 540 days delay in referring the file to Legal Branch; and
(iv) 535 days delay by previous Counsel in returning the file.
11. It is submitted that the Appellant took no steps to comply with the
Decree, despite repeated reminders and requests by the Respondent
RFA 69/2023 Page 3 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43

including Letter dated 12/13.09.2022, and Legal Notice dated 23.11.2022.
The date of receipt of the Notice has not been mentioned in the Affidavit by
the Appellant, to explain the delay.
12. The Appellant came into action only after 03.12.2022, when a Show
Cause Notice for Civil Detention, was issued against Vice Chairman, DDA.
Since, the Court refused to issue Notice in the Appeal and issued Notice
only on the Delay Application, bearing CM bearing No. 4030/2023, and the
Order dated 03.12.2022 was to be executed, that the Appellant made a
statement on 07.02.2023 that a Demand Letter for Allotment would be
issued within a period of three months, keeping the rights of the parties
open.
13. However, no valid Allotment has been made till date, despite various
Applications that have been filed before the executing Court. The conduct of
the Appellant the abuse of the process of law. The delay defeats Justice and
there must be a finality to the litigation.
14. The learned Trial Court has given a reasoned Judgment noting the
address error, non-service of documents, DDA Policy, Limitation period,
admission by DDA witnesses, lack of proof for change of address and the
applicability of DDA Policy. The DDA has been directed to allot a Flat to
the Plaintiff at the old cost-plus interest, as per their Policy for cases where
Demand Letters were sent to incorrect addresses.
15. There is no ground for condonation of delay and is Applicable is
liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused .
16. The Regular First Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment
dated 08.06.2018. As per the submissions in the Application itself, the
RFA 69/2023 Page 4 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43

Appeal has been filed in the last week of January, 2023 with a delay of 1600
days . The explanations given in the Application make an interesting reading.
17. As has been pointed out in the written submissions by the
Respondent, the learned Counsel who was handling the matter did not gave
the file in the Department after 80 days delay, for which there is no
explanation.
18. Thereafter, as per the submissions of the DDA, the file remained
unattended for 403 days. Again, there is absolutely no explanation why
such indifference was shown by the Department . In fact, it is stated in the
Application itself that the Department was exploring the possibility for
filing the Appeal or to comply with the Order . It all reflects that the DDA
was reluctant to file the Appeal and was in a state of confusion, whether an
Appeal indeed was merited against the Judgment .
19. Further reasons are even bizarre as it was stated that the Meeting was
held on 16.11.2018 within the Department, but thereafter, again there was a
long slumber of more than one year as the matter remained unattended till
24.12.2019 . The Appellant again tried to explain by stating that the File was
on the table of an employee, who retired on 31.07.2019 and therefore, the
File remained unattended.
20. The further explanation given is that the decision could not be taken
about filing of an Appeal, which eventually got filed on 24.06.2021. An
additional Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the DDA dated 28.03.2025
wherein date wise movement of the File, has been given.
21. It emerges from the additional Affidavit and the submissions made
by the Respondent that the Execution Petition got filed and the Notice of the
same was served upon DDA in December, 2022. There was compliance
RFA 69/2023 Page 5 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43

being directed by the Executing Court and even Warrants were issued
against the Vice Chairman, DDA. It is this circumstance which mobilized
the Appellant and prompted it to file the present Appeal.
22. The Appellant has placed reliance on Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.
3/2020 . However, this Judgment of Apex Court categorically explained that
it is only in cases where the limitation would have been expired during the
period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 that the limitation of 90 days
would be available from 01.03.2022. However, in the present case, the
Appeal does not fall within the ambit of this Order dated 10.01.2022 of the
Apex Court, since the time of filing of Appeal expired much prior to the
given date.
23. In this context it would be relevant to refer to the Judgment of
Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others , 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1969 wherein it was held as under:
“ 261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned
order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before
we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it
appropriate to make it abundantly clear that
administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a
sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want
to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts
that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and
superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient
cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able
to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained
vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to
justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more
particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate
the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also
equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing
litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.”
RFA 69/2023 Page 6 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43

24. This aspect of delay was further explained in the case of Union of
India and Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through his LRs , 2024
SCC OnLine SC 489, wherein the Supreme Court held that the length of
delay is a relevant factor which the Court must take into consideration,
while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not . From the
tenor of the approach of the Appellant, it appears that they wanted to fix
their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law
has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his
right to have the matter considered on merits, because of his own inaction
for long, it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to
be preferred as against technical considerations . While considering the plea
for condonation of delay, the Court must not start with the merits of the
main matter. The Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the
explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the
sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side
is equally balanced, that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the
matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
25. The term “ sufficient cause ” is not a loose panacea for the ill of
pressing negligent and stale claims. This expression is to be construed with
justice-oriented flexibility, so as not to punish innocent litigants for the
circumstances beyond their control as has been noted in the case of
Shivamma (Dead) by LRs (supra). This is a classic case demonstrating
absolutely lack of diligence and the lackadaisical attitude of the DDA
which is not condonable .
26. From the explanation given by the Appellant in the Application, it is
RFA 69/2023 Page 7 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43

evident that there was not any bona fide delay , but it was only on account
of there being a discussion in the Department that the Appeal may not be
merited. The Appeal finally got triggered by the Warrants issued against the
Vice Chairman, DDA. It is, therefore, evident that there is no sufficient
cause of delay explained in the Application for Condonation of Delay of
1600 days .
27. There is no merit in the present Application, which is hereby,
dismissed .
RFA 69/2023:
28. In view of the observations made above in the CM APPL.
4030/2023 , the present Regular First Appeal along with pending
Application(s) stands dismissed .

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MAY 07, 2026
R/VA
RFA 69/2023 Page 8 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:07.05.2026
17:55:43