Delhi HC Condoned Up To 171-Day Delay In 65-Year-Old Son’s Family-Estate Appeal, Citing Cardiac Episodes And Company Account Attachment

The appeal arose from a family dispute concerning the estate of late Sh. Surjit Singh Sahni, including interests in two companies and property at W-134, Greater Kailash.

The Appellants challenged an order dated 6 August 2025 directing the filing of affidavits disclosing specified movable assets, and a judgment dated 19 September 2025 that dismissed their recall application and directed a company to deposit a proportionate share of rent.

The appeal was filed on 17 February 2026.

The Appellants sought condonation of delay, relying on Appellant No. 1’s health, the pendency of the recall application, attachment of company bank accounts, a change of counsel, and the volume of the record.

The Respondents opposed condonation, disputing the explanation and alleging inaction and non-compliance with the underlying orders.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits an appeal filed beyond limitation where the appellant establishes “sufficient cause”; Article 117 of the Schedule prescribes 30 days for an intra-court appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act.

The Court applied the principles in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, favouring a pragmatic approach that advances substantial justice; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, under which the acceptability of the explanation, rather than the length of delay alone, is decisive; Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, requiring consideration of bona fides, negligence and the balance of justice; and Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, distinguishing a genuine explanation from a mere excuse.

Limitation runs from pronouncement, and pendency of a recall application does not itself suspend limitation, though it may be considered in assessing sufficient cause.

The merits of the appeal are not to be determined while deciding an application for condonation of delay.

The Court adopted the Respondents’ more generous computation, finding delays of 127 days for the judgment and 171 days for the earlier order, without deciding whether the Appellants could rely on the earlier diary filing or claim exclusion under Section 12(2).

It treated the recall application as a relevant circumstance, but not as stopping limitation.

Considering the explanation cumulatively, the Court accepted the documented acute medical episodes, the consequences of the account attachment, the change of counsel and the time reasonably needed to review a record exceeding 1,650 pages; it found that the Appellants acted with reasonable promptitude after engaging new counsel.

The Court also held that the alleged non-compliance and other disputes related to the underlying proceedings, not whether the delay was deliberate, and that the Respondents would suffer no irreparable prejudice from the appeal being heard.

The Appellants were directed to pay costs of ₹25,000 to each of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within four weeks.

Condonation did not stay the challenged orders or proceedings; the Appellants remained bound by their undertakings and existing directions, and the Respondents’ maintainability objections were left open for the appeal hearing.