Manmeet Singh Sahni & Ors. vs Rupinder Singh Sahni & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 07.10.2026
Date of pronouncement: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010069422026
+ FAO(OS) 25/2026
1. MANMEET SINGH SAHNI
S/o Late Sh. Surjit Sahni
R/o W-134, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi. …. Appellant No.1
2. PRESTOLITE OF INDIA LIMITED
(Through Its Director, Mr. Manmeet Singh Sahni)
Having Registered Office at:
Basement Floor, W-134, Second Floor,
Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048. …. Appellant No.2
3. RAZIKA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED
(Through Its Director, Mr. Manmeet Singh Sahni)
Having Registered Office at:
Basement Floor, W-134, Second Floor,
Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048. …. Appellant No.3
Through: Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Keshav Sehgal,
Mr. Shivam Gaur, Mr. Aryan Kumar
and Ms. Rashi Singh, Advocates.
versus
1. RUPINDER SINGH SAHNI
S/o Late Sh. Surjit Sahni
R/o E-425, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi-110048.
Also at,
W-134, First Floor, Greater Kailash-1,
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 1 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
New Delhi-110048. .... Respondent No.1
2. PARVEEN KAUR SAHNI
D/o Late Sh. Surjit Sahni
R/o W-134, First Floor, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi-110048. .... Respondent No.2
3. HARLEEN KAUR SETHI
D/o Late Sh. Surjit Sahni
R/o R-202, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi-110048. .... Respondent No.3
Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Priyansh Jain and
Mr. Anmol Ghai, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
J U D G M E N T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.
Particulars Para Nos. Page
No.
No.
1. The Application 1 – 3 2
2. Factual Matrix 4 – 10 3
3. Computation of Delay
4. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants /
11 6
Applicants
5. Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.
12 9
1 and 2
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 2 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
S.
Particulars Para Nos. Page
No.
No.
6. Analysis and Findings 13 – 34 13
A. The governing principles 14 – 18 13
B. Quantum of delay 19 – 20 16
C. The delay qua the Impugned Order
21 16
dated 06.08.2025
D. The explanation for the period after
22 – 27 17
19.09.2025
E. The objections of the Respondents 28 – 34 20
7. Conclusion 35 – 38 24
CM APPL. 12562/2026 (Condonation of delay in filing the appeal) in
FAO(OS) 25/2026.
I. THE APPLICATION
1. The present Application, being CM APPL. 12562/2026, has been
1
preferred by the Appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read
2
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , seeking condonation
of delay in filing the captioned Appeal, FAO(OS) 25/2026.
2. By way of the captioned Appeal, preferred under Section 10 of the
Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 and Sections 104
and 151 of the CPC, the Appellants assail (i) the judgment dated
1
The Limitation Act
2
CPC
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 3 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
3 4
19.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 37405/2024 , I.A.
5 6
No. 16373/2025 and I.A. No. 20694/2025 in CS(OS) 675/2024 titled
7
“Rupinder Singh Sahni &Anr. v. Manmeet Singh Sahni & Ors.” ; and (ii) the
8
order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Suit.
3. The Application, as filed, prays for condonation of a delay of 124 days
in assailing the Impugned Order dated 06.08.2025 and 94 days in assailing
the Impugned Judgment dated 19.09.2025.
II. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Succinctly stated, the dispute is a family dispute concerning the estate
of late Sh. Surjit Singh Sahni, who passed away on 27.01.2024, and his
interest in two companies, namely, M/s Prestolite of India Limited and M/s
Razika Finlease Private Limited, as well as in the property bearing No. W-
134, Greater Kailash, New Delhi-110048.
5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 instituted the Suit against, inter alia , their
brother, Appellant No. 1 (Defendant No. 1), and Appellant Nos. 2 and 3
(Defendant Nos. 6 and 7), seeking, inter alia , partition of the estate of their
late father, Sh. Surjit Singh Sahni, declarations in respect of the gift deeds and
share transfers made by him in favour of Appellant No. 1, and rendition of
accounts. During the pendency of the Suit, the learned Single Judge, by the
Impugned Order dated 06.08.2025, directed Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 to
place on record specific affidavit(s) with respect to the movable assets
3
Impugned Judgement
4
Status Quo Application
5
Rent Deposit Application
6
Recall Application
7
the Suit
8
Impugned Order
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 4 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
mentioned in paragraph 35 of the plaint, along with the contemporaneous
record. The Appellants sought recall of the said order by way of the Recall
Application.
6. By the Impugned Judgment dated 19.09.2025, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the Status Quo Application and the Rent Deposit Application,
made the interim order dated 04.10.2024 absolute, and directed Appellant No.
2 (Defendant No. 6) to deposit a percentage of the rent accruing from its
immovable properties commensurate to the share of Respondent Nos. 1 and
2, to be calculated on the basis of the purported shareholding disclosed in
paragraph 23 of the plaint. By the same judgment, the Recall Application was
dismissed, and the matter was directed to be listed before the learned Joint
Registrar on 08.12.2025. The period of 30 days for preferring an appeal
against the Impugned Judgment expired on 19.09.2025.
7. In the meantime, Appellant No. 1 is stated to have consulted a doctor
on 18.10.2025, 16.11.2025, 23.11.2025 and 01.01.2026 for cardiac,
hypertension and other ailments. On 08.12.2025, the learned Joint Registrar,
noting that no deposit had been made in terms of the Impugned Judgment,
issued a warrant of attachment against Appellant No. 2 and attached five of
its bank accounts. Thereafter, on 21.01.2026, Court notice was issued to the
concerned Bank Managers to furnish details of the movable assets of
Appellant No. 2 and of late Sh. Surjit Singh Sahni.
8. According to the Appellants, an appeal against the Impugned Judgment
was filed by their erstwhile counsel on 22.01.2026 vide Diary No. E-
41775/2026, which was, however, never registered or listed. The certified
copy of the Impugned Judgment was applied for on 22.01.2026 and was
received on 28.01.2026, on which date the present counsel was engaged. The
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 5 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
index of the present appeal and the supporting affidavits bear the date
12.02.2026; the appeal was filed on 17.02.2026 vide Diary No. E-81171/2026;
advance service was effected upon Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 23.02.2026;
and the appeal was listed before this Court for the first time on 24.02.2026.
9. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply opposing the present
application. By order dated 28.04.2026, this Court directed the Appellants to
file an affidavit with regard to the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal
stated to have been filed by the erstwhile counsel. Pursuant thereto, Appellant
No. 1 filed his affidavit dated 06.07.2026, along with Board Resolutions,
medical documents and copies of the applications dated 18.04.2026 and
01.06.2026 filed by the Respondents before the learned NCLT, in response to
which Respondent No. 1 filed a counter affidavit dated 25.08.2026. In the
meanwhile, in the Suit, by orders dated 12.08.2026 and 19.08.2026, the
learned Single Judge recorded the undertaking of the defendants that the
affidavit of assets directed on 06.08.2025 shall be filed, and granted four
weeks for compliance.
COMPUTATION OF DELAY :
10. The period of limitation for an intra-court appeal under Section 10 of
the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 is 30 days in terms of Article 117 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act. The respective computations of the parties are
as under:-
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 6 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
Order impugned As per
As per
As per
Appellants
Respondents
Respondents
(till 12.02.2026)
(till 23.02.2026)
Impugned Order
124 days 160 days 171 days
dated 06.08.2025
Impugned Judgment
94 days 116 days 127 days
dated 19.09.2025
11. It is the further case of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that, since the certified
copy was applied for only on 22.01.2026, i.e., after the expiry of limitation,
the Appellants are not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 12(2) of the
Limitation Act; and that even if the time taken for obtaining the certified copy
(22.01.2026 to 28.01.2026) were excluded, the delay qua the Impugned
Judgment would still be about 120 days if reckoned till 23.02.2026. No
separate application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing has been
moved, and none has been pressed by either side; the appeal, after removal of
defects, was listed for the first time on 24.02.2026.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/
APPLICANTS
12. Learned counsel for the Appellants, relying upon the application and
the affidavit of Appellant No. 1 dated 06.07.2026, made the following
submissions:
i. Appellant No. 1 is a senior citizen, aged about 65 years, who
underwent cardiac bypass surgery in 2018 and is a patient of
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 7 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
hypertension. Since the institution of the Suit, his health has
deteriorated on account of the stress of the litigation, and he has
suffered episodes of hypertension, dizziness and breathlessness. He
was constrained to consult the doctor on 18.10.2025, 16.11.2025,
23.11.2025 and 01.01.2026, i.e., during the very period when the
appeal ought to have been filed, and was advised bed rest on each
occasion. The prescriptions were placed on record on 25.03.2026
and again with the affidavit dated 06.07.2026.
ii. Since the demise of his father, Appellant No. 1 has been managing
the affairs of Appellant No. 2 and has been single-handedly
defending the multiple proceedings initiated by the Respondents,
including the Suit, numerous interlocutory applications therein and
Company Petition No. 95/Chd/Hry/2024 before the learned NCLT,
Chandigarh.
iii. The order dated 08.12.2025 attaching the bank accounts of
Appellant No. 2 brought the management of the company to a
standstill, causing difficulties in payment of salaries of staff and
statutory dues such as income tax and GST. Appellant No. 1 was
occupied in managing this crisis, which further delayed the
preparation of the appeal.
iv. There was a change of counsel. The erstwhile counsel had filed an
appeal against the Impugned Judgment vide Diary No. E-
41775/2026 on 22.01.2026; however, the said filing was never
registered or listed, and the erstwhile counsel could not trace the
physical file. The Appellants accordingly engaged the present
counsel on 28.01.2026. The certified copy of the Impugned
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 8 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
Judgment was applied for on 22.01.2026 and received on
28.01.2026.
v. The record of the Suit runs into thousands of pages; the present
paper book itself runs into over 1,650 pages. The new counsel had
to procure and study the entire record, and typed copies of several
annexures had to be prepared. The appeal was thereafter filed on
17.02.2026 vide Diary No. E-81171/2026.
vi. The Impugned Order dated 06.08.2025 was the subject matter of
the Recall Application, which remained pending until it was
dismissed by the Impugned Judgment dated 19.09.2025. The
challenge to both is, therefore, interlinked.
vii. Appellant No. 1 is duly authorised to represent Appellant Nos. 2
and 3 by Board Resolutions dated 27.09.2024, 19.11.2025 and
16.04.2026, all of which are on record. The objection regarding
absence of authorisation is, therefore, misconceived.
viii. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, and no prejudice
would be caused to the Respondents if the delay is condoned. On
the other hand, the Appellants would suffer grave prejudice, since
the Impugned Judgment was founded on the “purported
shareholding” disclosed in paragraph 23 of the plaint, whereas the
Respondents themselves, in their applications dated 18.04.2026 and
01.06.2026 before the learned NCLT, have stated their
shareholding in Appellant No. 2 to be approximately 5.446%. The
Respondents are deliberately seeking to delay the adjudication of
the appeal on merits by raising frivolous objections.
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 9 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2
13. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1
and 2, relying upon the reply, vehemently opposed the application and made
the following submissions:
i. No sufficient cause; application lacks factual averments. The
application is a mere formality, bereft of substance and specific
factual averments, and the subsequent affidavit dated 06.07.2026 is
almost a replica of the application. The Appellants have, moreover,
understated the delay; the actual delay is 116 to 127 days qua the
Impugned Judgment and 160 to 171 days qua the Impugned Order.
ii. Appellant No. 1 is not the company. Appellant No. 1 and his wife,
Smt. Gurcharan Kaur Sahni, are both Directors of Appellant No. 2,
and the Board stands at 2:1 in their favour. The health of Appellant
No. 1 cannot drive the fate of the entire company. Appellant No. 1
is, therefore, not solely responsible for the management of
Appellant No. 2 as alleged.
iii. Authorisation in favour of the wife. By the Board Resolution
dated 19.11.2025, passed in a meeting attended by Appellant No. 1
himself, both Appellant No. 1 and his wife were authorised to
appoint lawyers, sign and file affidavits, petitions and replies, and
to file and defend suits and appeals on behalf of Appellant No. 2
and its Directors. The wife of Appellant No. 1, who draws a salary
of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the company, could thus have
caused the appeal to be filed in his absence.
iv. Earlier appeal is baseless and a sham. The plea that an appeal
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 10 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
was earlier filed by the erstwhile counsel vide Diary No. E-
41775/2026 is baseless, as nothing has been placed on record to
substantiate it. No copy of any such appeal was ever served upon
the Respondents, and the filing, if at all made, is non est . It appears
to have been made only to generate a dummy diary number so as to
avoid the rigours of limitation, which is why the Appellants have
computed the delay only till 22.01.2026. The Appellants have not
disclosed what became of that filing, and their own subsequent
admission that it was never registered or listed fortifies this
submission.
v. Medical documents are unreliable. Only bare prescriptions have
been placed on record; there are no purchase slips or bills for
medicines, and no reports of the tests advised therein. The bypass
surgery was undergone about eight years ago, in 2018, and cannot
constitute sufficient cause for delay in 2026. The prescriptions are
stated to have been procured, inasmuch as: the prescription of
16.11.2025 advised a catheter for four days, yet Appellant No. 1
attended a Board Meeting of Appellant No. 2 for over an hour on
19.11.2025 without any catheter; the prescription advising four
weeks of complete bed rest was followed by Appellant No. 1 being
seen driving his car on 24.11.2025 in CCTV footage; and
photographs show him visiting the Gurudwara almost daily.
Appellant No. 1 was also physically present at hearings of the Suit,
and attends parties and social functions.
vi. Acquiescence and change of counsel only after coercive steps.
The Appellants were content with the Impugned Judgment and the
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 11 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
Impugned Order. It was only after the learned Joint Registrar
attached the bank accounts of Appellant No. 2 on 08.12.2025 and
directed the Bank Managers on 21.01.2026 to disclose details of
movable assets that Appellant No. 1 changed his counsel and “got
the idea” of filing the appeal. As on 08.12.2025, the delay already
stood at about 50 days, and as on 28.01.2026 at about 101 days;
change of counsel cannot explain a delay which had already
accrued.
vii. The Impugned Judgment causes no hardship. The Impugned
Judgment directs deposit of only that percentage of the rent which
is commensurate to the plaintiffs’ share, and not the entire rental
income; further, the amount so deposited is not permitted to be
withdrawn by the plaintiffs and is to be released only upon final
adjudication. The plea of financial crisis is, therefore, lame.
Appellant No. 1 has also neglected to collect rent of Rs. 5,00,000/-
per month from RBL Bank Ltd., a tenant of Appellant No. 2 at
Gurugram, and around Rs. 90,00,000/- received as rent in
November 2025 has not been deposited.
viii. Continuing default and contempt. The Appellants have failed to
comply with the order dated 06.08.2025 till date. As recorded in the
order dated 12.08.2026 passed in the Suit, the affidavit of assets had
still not been filed and an undertaking had to be given that it would
be filed immediately. The Appellants have thus been in default for
well over a year, are in contempt, and ought not to be heard until
they comply with the directions and undertakings given to the
Court.
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 12 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
ix. Pursuit of the Suit is no excuse. The plaintiffs’ pursuit of their
lawful remedies cannot be termed vexatious and cannot constitute
sufficient cause for the Appellants’ delay.
x. Inconsistent and contradictory pleas. In the application, the
Appellants averred that the present counsel applied for the certified
copy on 22.01.2026, though he was admittedly engaged only on
28.01.2026; in the affidavit dated 06.07.2026, Appellant No. 1
claims to have applied for it himself. Moreover, the certified copy
was applied for after about five months from the Impugned
Judgment and after expiry of limitation, so no benefit of Section
12(2) of the Limitation Act is available. The record of the Suit is
easily available in PDF form, and there are hardly any new
documents beyond the Suit record, so the plea of voluminous record
and typed copies is untenable.
xi. Other objections. The appeal is not accompanied by Board
Resolutions of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 authorising Appellant No. 1.
The Appellants attempted to mislead the learned Single Judge by
not disclosing crucial facts. The Impugned Order dated 06.08.2025
is not an appealable order, and the dismissal of the Recall
Application is akin to the rejection of a review. The shareholding
of the Respondents is irrelevant to an application for condonation
of delay. Negligence and inaction on the part of the Appellants
cannot be rewarded, and the application deserves to be dismissed
with costs.
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 13 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
V. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
carefully perused the application, the affidavit of Appellant No. 1 dated
06.07.2026, the reply and the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 1, and the
documents placed on record.
A. THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES:
15. Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers the Court to admit an appeal
after the prescribed period if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had
“sufficient cause” for not preferring it within such period. The expression
“sufficient cause” has consistently been construed liberally so as to advance
substantial justice, particularly where no negligence, inaction or want of bona
fides is imputable to the party. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v.
9
Mst. Katiji , the Supreme Court laid down the following guiding principles:
“1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal
late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being
thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that
a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic
approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s
delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted
against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred
for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on
account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant
does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious
9
(1987) 2 SCC 107
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 14 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
risk.”
10
16. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy , the Supreme Court held
that the length of delay is no matter and that the acceptability of the
explanation is the only criterion. The Court observed that rules of limitation
are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, but are meant to see that parties
do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek their remedy promptly. The Court
further cautioned that, while condoning delay, the Court should not forget the
opposite party altogether, and that the opposite party may be compensated for
the loss occasioned to it.
17. In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
11
Nafar Academy , the Supreme Court, while reiterating the liberal, pragmatic
and justice-oriented approach, culled out further principles, including that no
presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay, though gross
negligence on the part of counsel or litigant is to be taken note of; that lack of
bona fides imputable to the party seeking condonation is a significant and
relevant fact; that there is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay
of short duration, the former warranting a strict approach and the latter a
liberal delineation; and that the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party
relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant, the Court being required to
weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties.
12
18. In Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India , the Supreme Court reiterated
that the exercise of discretion under Section 5 must depend upon the
sufficiency of the cause shown, the length of delay by itself not being decisive,
10
(1998) 7 SCC 123
11
(2013) 12 SCC 649
12
, (2023) 10 SCC 531 : 2023 INSC 885
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 15 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
and drew a distinction between an “ explanation ” and an “ excuse ”, holding
that it is a genuine explanation, and not a mere excuse, which must inform the
exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court there upheld the condonation of a
delay of about 479 days.
19. The test, therefore, is not whether each individual circumstance pleaded
would, in isolation, constitute sufficient cause, but whether the circumstances,
viewed cumulatively and realistically, disclose a bona fide explanation free
from deliberate inaction or mala fides . It is on this anvil that the present
application must be examined.
B. QUANTUM OF DELAY
20. At the outset, we note that the computation of delay furnished by the
Appellants (124 days and 94 days) appears to have been reckoned only till
22.01.2026, the date of the alleged earlier filing, and even on that footing is
understated qua the Impugned Order. The Respondents are right in pointing
this out. However, to obviate any controversy, and without determining
whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of Section 12(2) of the
Limitation Act or to reckon delay from the earlier diary number, we proceed
on the footing most favourable to the Respondents, namely, a delay of 127
days qua the Impugned Judgment and 171 days qua the Impugned Order,
reckoned till 23.02.2026.
21. An understatement of the delay in the application, without more, does
not by itself establish mala fides , particularly when the dates of the Impugned
Judgment, the Impugned Order, the filing and the service are all matters of
record before the Court and nothing was concealed. A delay of about four
months in filing an intra-court appeal against an interlocutory judgment,
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 16 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
though not insignificant, cannot be characterised as inordinate in the sense of
being a delay of years that would unsettle vested rights.
C. THE DELAY QUA THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2025
22. The higher delay of 171 days qua the Impugned Order is largely
explained by the record itself. The Appellants did not sit idle after 06.08.2025;
they filed the Recall Application (I.A. 20694/2025) seeking recall of that very
order, which remained pending until it was dismissed by the Impugned
Judgment on 19.09.2025. A party that is bona fide pursuing a remedy before
the same Court for setting aside an order cannot be said to have acquiesced in
it or to have been negligent during that period. Upon the dismissal of the
Recall Application, the challenge to the Impugned Order merged with the
challenge to the Impugned Judgment, and the Appellants have sought to assail
both together. We are, however, conscious that the period of limitation for
assailing the Impugned Order commenced from 06.08.2025, the date of its
pronouncement, and expired on 05.09.2025, and that the period of limitation
for assailing the Impugned Judgment commenced from 19.09.2025, the date
of its pronouncement. The pendency of the Recall Application did not, by
itself, arrest the running of time; it is only a circumstance to be weighed while
examining whether “sufficient cause” has been shown under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. The Supreme Court, in Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
13
& Anr. v. M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd ., has reiterated that limitation
commences from the date of pronouncement of the judgment and not from
the date of its communication, and that the law of limitation enjoins diligence
upon the parties. The relevant observations read as under:
13
2025 INSC 533
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 17 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
“10. We are afraid it is difficult for us to take the view that the provision
referred to above is mandatory. It comes to this that till the Registry
does not provide the copy of the judgment, though not demanded, the
period of limitation would not commence from the date of the
pronouncement of the judgment.
xxx xxx xxx
14. Thus, when this Court in Housing Board, Haryana (supra) held that
the limitation for challenging the same would begin from the date of
such communication, the same would be applicable only where despite
best of efforts at the end of the parties in procuring the order the same
could not be obtained and thereby resulting in unavoidable delay in the
filing of appeals. One of the core tenets of the law of limitation is to
enthuse diligence amongst parties as to their rights. The law of
limitation cannot be read in such a manner whereby parties stop
showing any modicum of regard for their own rights and on the pre-
text of untimely communication continue to litigate without being
vigilante themselves.
xxx xxx xxx
18. Thus, merely because Order XX Rule I enjoins a duty upon the
commercial courts to provide the copies of the judgment that does not
mean that the parties can shirk away all responsibility of endeavouring
to procure the certified copies thereof in their own capacity. Any such
interpretation would result in frustrating the very fundamental cannons
of law of limitation and the salutary purpose of the Act, 2015 of
ensuring timely disposals.”
D. THE EXPLANATION FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 19.09.2025
23. The period of limitation falls into three broad phases, which is
examined as under:-
24. First phase (19.09.2025 to 08.12.2025): ill-health of Appellant No.1-
It is not in dispute that Appellant No. 1 is a senior citizen, aged about 65 years,
and that he underwent cardiac bypass surgery in 2018. The prescriptions
placed on record show that on 18.10.2025, a day before limitation expired, he
presented with chest pain, sweating and a blood pressure of 170/100, was
administered emergency medication and oxygen, and was advised complete
bed rest; on 16.11.2025 he was catheterised for acute urinary retention; on
23.11.2025 he again presented with chest pain, ECG changes and a blood
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 18 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
pressure of 190/110, and was advised urgent coronary angiography and bed
rest; and on 01.01.2026 he was administered intravenous fluids for weakness
and vomiting.
25. The Respondents have assailed these documents on the ground that
they are unaccompanied by purchase slips or test reports, and that Appellant
No. 1 was seen attending a Board Meeting on 19.11.2025, driving on
24.11.2025 and visiting the Gurudwara. We have considered these objections
carefully. The genuineness of the prescriptions, which bear the name,
qualifications and registration number of the treating doctor, has not been
shown to be false by any material beyond bare assertion. That a 65-year-old
cardiac patient with a history of bypass surgery was able, on some days, to
attend a Board Meeting (which, the record shows, was convened pursuant to
proceedings before the learned NCLT), visit a place of worship or drive a car,
does not falsify the existence of his ailments; the law does not require a litigant
to be bed-ridden every single day of the period of delay. The Court is required
to take a realistic and humane view, and not to sit in judgment on whether a
senior citizen followed every medical advice to the letter. The fact that the
cardiac surgery took place in 2018 does not detract from the case of the
Appellants; on the contrary, it is the underlying cardiac condition, coupled
with the acute episodes in October and November 2025, that renders the
explanation credible. We, however, clarify that we do not rest our conclusion
on the medical documents alone, but consider them as one of the cumulative
circumstances.
26. Second phase (08.12.2025 to 28.01.2026): attachment of accounts
and change of counsel- On 08.12.2025, the bank accounts of Appellant No.
2 were attached. It is no answer to say that the Impugned Judgment directs
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 19 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
deposit of only a percentage of the rent; the attachment of five operational
bank accounts of a company, on any reckoning, has an immediate effect on
its ability to meet salary and statutory obligations, and it is natural that the
person principally conducting its affairs and litigation would have to attend to
the same. The Respondents’ contention that the attachment of the accounts of
Appellant No. 2 and the direction of 21.01.2026 alone prompted the appeal,
far from demonstrating mala fides , demonstrates that the coercive
consequences of the Impugned Judgment crystallised only thereafter, and that
the Appellants thereupon took steps to engage new counsel and assail it. A
litigant who chooses to challenge an order once its consequences become real
cannot be said to have forfeited his statutory right of appeal by reason of
acquiescence, absent an express waiver, which is not the Respondents’ case.
27. As regards the alleged earlier filing by the erstwhile counsel vide Diary
No. E-41775/2026, we find merit in the Respondents’ submission that no copy
of the same has been placed on record and that it was admittedly never
registered or listed. We, accordingly, do not grant the Appellants any benefit
on account of that filing, and have computed the delay ignoring it altogether.
At the same time, the fact that the certified copy of the Impugned Judgment
was undisputedly applied for on 22.01.2026, the very date of the said diary
number, lends a degree of corroboration to the Appellants’ version that steps
towards filing an appeal were being taken around that date. The variance
between the application and the affidavit as to who applied for the certified
copy is, in our view, a drafting inconsistency which has been clarified on
affidavit, and not a deliberate misstatement calculated to gain any advantage.
28. Third phase (28.01.2026 to 23.02.2026): preparation and filing by
new counsel- The present counsel was engaged on 28.01.2026, the certified
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 20 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
copy was received on the same day, and the appeal was filed on 17.02.2026,
with service on 23.02.2026. The present paper book runs into more than 1,650
pages and comprises 68 annexures, including the plaint, the written statement,
the counter-claim, the NCLT proceedings and numerous orders. A period of
about three weeks for new counsel to study such a record, draft a
comprehensive appeal with accompanying applications and file it, cannot be
termed lack of diligence. Upon engagement of the new counsel, the
Appellants acted with reasonable promptitude.
E. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
29. Wife and company could have filed the appeal- It is true that
Appellant No. 1 and his wife are both Directors of Appellant No. 2 and that
the Board Resolution dated 19.11.2025 authorised both to engage counsel and
conduct litigation. However, the authorisation is enabling, not mandatory, and
its existence does not mean that the wife was in a position to instruct counsel
on a complex family and commercial dispute in which Appellant No. 1, the
son of late Sh. Surjit Singh Sahni and the donee under the impugned gift
deeds, is the principal contesting party with personal knowledge of the facts.
Notably, the Impugned Order dated 06.08.2025 is directed against Appellant
No. 1 personally, among others, in respect of disclosure of movable assets,
and Appellant No. 1 is himself an appellant in his individual capacity. The
question under Section 5 is whether the explanation offered by the appellant
before the Court is bona fide , not whether some other person could
theoretically have acted differently. We also cannot overlook the incongruity
in the Respondents’ stand: on the one hand they assert that the appeal is not
maintainable for want of a Board Resolution authorising Appellant No. 1, and
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 21 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
on the other they rely on a Board Resolution to contend that the company was
adequately authorised to act through others. The Board Resolutions dated
27.09.2024, 19.11.2025 and 16.04.2026 placed on record, in any event,
answer the objection regarding authorisation of Appellant No. 1.
30. Application lacks factual averments- The original application is no
doubt brief. However, this Court, by its order dated 28.04.2026, called upon
the Appellants to file an affidavit explaining the delay, and the Appellants
have done so on 06.07.2026, supported by medical documents, Board
Resolutions and other material. Both the application and the affidavit have to
be read together, and, so read, they furnish a specific and date-wise
explanation that has been tested by the Respondents through a detailed
counter affidavit.
31. Non-compliance and default- The Respondents have strenuously
urged that the Appellants have not complied with the order dated 06.08.2025
and the deposit directions, and have remained in default for more than a year,
as is evident from the order dated 12.08.2026 passed in the Suit. We do not,
in any manner, condone non-compliance with orders of the Court. However,
the question before us is confined to whether sufficient cause has been shown
for the delay in filing the appeal. Compliance with the orders of the learned
Single Judge is a matter being supervised by the learned Single Judge, who,
by the orders dated 12.08.2026 and 19.08.2026, has recorded the undertaking
of the Appellants and granted time for compliance; the Respondents’
remedies for any non-compliance remain fully available in those proceedings.
Non-compliance with the very order which is the subject matter of challenge
cannot be a ground to non-suit a party at the threshold on limitation, more so
when the attachment and coercive directions continue to operate in favour of
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 22 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
the Respondents and no stay has been granted in the appeal. That the amounts
deposited are not presently withdrawable by the Respondents, as urged, in fact
demonstrates that the Respondents’ interests are secured and that no prejudice
would be caused to them by the appeal being heard on merits.
32. Collection of rent and alleged concealment- The submissions
regarding non-collection of rent from RBL Bank Ltd., receipt of Rs.
90,00,000/- and the conduct of the Appellants before the learned Single Judge
pertain to the merits of the dispute and to compliance in the Suit. They do not
bear upon the question whether the delay in filing the appeal was deliberate,
and are left open.
33. Merits and the balance of justice- Both sides have addressed
submissions touching upon the merits, the Appellants relying upon the
Respondents’ statements before the learned NCLT regarding their
shareholding, and the Respondents contending that the Impugned Judgment
is well reasoned. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
14
Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) ,
the merits of the appeal are not required to be considered while deciding an
application for condonation of delay, and we have not done so. Our conclusion
rests solely on the sufficiency of the cause shown. We only note, as the
Supreme Court did in Katiji ( supra ), that when delay is condoned the highest
that can happen is that the cause is decided on merits after hearing the parties,
and, as held in Esha Bhattacharjee ( supra ), that the Court must weigh the
balance of justice in respect of both parties.
34. Prejudice- Lastly, we find that no irreparable prejudice would be
14
2024 SCC OnLine SC 513
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 23 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
caused to the Respondents by condoning the delay. The Impugned Judgment
and the Impugned Order are interlocutory in nature; the Suit continues; the
interim protections and coercive directions in favour of the Respondents
remain operative; and no third-party rights are shown to have arisen on
account of the lapse of time. On the other hand, refusing to condone the delay
would permanently deprive the Appellants of their statutory right of an intra-
court appeal against directions having significant financial and corporate
consequences. Any inconvenience caused to the Respondents by the delay can
adequately be compensated by costs.
35. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cumulative circumstances,
namely, the advanced age and documented cardiac condition of Appellant No.
1 and the acute medical episodes during the relevant period; the pendency of
the Recall Application against the Impugned Order until 19.09.2025; the
coercive attachment of the accounts of Appellant No. 2 and its effect on the
conduct of the company; the change of counsel; and the voluminous record
that had to be studied by the new counsel, constitute “sufficient cause” within
the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay is not shown to be
the result of a deliberate design or culpable negligence, and the Appellants
stood to gain nothing by approaching this Court late, particularly when
coercive directions were operating against them.
VI. CONCLUSION
36. In view of the foregoing, the application is allowed , and the delay in
filing the appeal against the Impugned Judgment dated 19.09.2025 and in
filing the appeal against the Impugned Order dated 06.08.2025 are condoned.
Bearing in mind the observation in N. Balakrishnan (supra) that the opposite
party ought not to be forgotten, and not as a condition forming the basis of
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 24 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing
condonation, the Appellants shall pay costs of ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand only) each to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within four weeks from
today.
37. It is clarified that:
(i) the condonation of delay shall not operate as a stay of the Impugned
Judgment or the Impugned Order, or of any proceedings, including the
attachment, in the Suit;
(ii) the Appellants shall remain bound by their undertakings and the
directions recorded in the orders dated 12.08.2026 and 19.08.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge, and nothing in this judgment shall
come in the way of the Respondents seeking appropriate remedies for
any non-compliance;
(iii) the objections of the Respondents as to the maintainability of the
appeal, including qua the Impugned Order dated 06.08.2025 and the
dismissal of the Recall Application, are left open to be urged at the
hearing of the appeal; and
(iv) nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the appeal or of the Suit.
38. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
FAO(OS) 25/2026 & CM APPLs.12563/2026 & 14975/2026
39. List the appeal for hearing on 08.02.2027.
NISHA SAHAY SAXENA, J
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/jd
Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) 25/2026 Page 25 of 25
Digitally Signed
By:ALKA BOBAL
Signing