An application for condonation of delay must be decided before hearing the appeal on merits.

The respondents-landlords obtained an ejectment order against the petitioner-tenant on 22.05.2026.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, along with an application for condonation of delay and an application seeking stay of the ejectment order.

By order dated 14.09.2026, the Appellate Court listed the application for condonation of delay, the stay application, and the main appeal for arguments together.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the application for condonation of delay had to be decided before the appeal could be heard on merits.

1. Whether the Appellate Court could fix the application for condonation of delay and the main appeal for hearing together before deciding whether the delayed appeal was maintainable?

2. Whether the order dated 14.09.2026 required interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through His LRs., that an application for condonation of delay must ordinarily be considered without entering into the merits of the main matter; the Court must first assess the bona fides and sufficiency of the explanation for delay, and may consider the merits only where the explanation and the opposing objections are evenly balanced.

It also relied on M/s United Construction Co. v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2010 (7) R.C.R. (Civil) 1088, which holds that an application for condonation of delay must be decided first because, if rejected, nothing remains for consideration in the appeal.

The Court held that the Appellate Court had adopted an improper sequence by listing the condonation application and the main appeal for hearing together.

The question of condonation was anterior to consideration of the appeal on merits: if delay was not condoned, the appeal would not proceed; only if delay was condoned would the Court need to consider the appeal and the stay application further.

Accordingly, fixing both matters together was inconsistent with the governing principles in Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy and United Construction Co.

The order dated 14.09.2026 was set aside, and the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, was directed to decide the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay before hearing the main appeal in accordance with law.

The Court made no observations on the merits of the case.

Any pending applications were disposed of.