The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has reaffirmed that mere financial difficulties or the misplacement of records do not amount to “sufficient cause” for condoning inordinate delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The judgment follows settled precedent and provides binding clarity for subordinate courts, confirming that courts must require cogent, satisfactory reasons for condonation — particularly when delays are extensive.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1067/2019 of LAKHI RAM(SINCE DECEASED) THR LR Vs SMT. OMPATI AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010139672019 |
| Date of Registration | 13-02-2019 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Law of Limitation |
| Questions of Law | Whether financial constraints or misplacement of court records constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that financial difficulty and misplacement of records do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay in filing appeals. The explanation offered by the appellant was found to be wholly insufficient. The principle that only substantial, satisfactory reasons can justify condonation of delay was reaffirmed. The appeal, delayed by 607 days, was dismissed on ground of limitation as well as on merits. The concurrent findings of lower courts were accepted, further cementing the necessity of prompt action and proper justification in limitation matters. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant claimed ownership and possession of suit property but admitted during cross-examination that respondents were in possession and shown as owners in municipal records. The trial court dismissed the suit for falsified pleadings; the first appellate court affirmed on re-appraisal. There was a 607 days’ delay in filing the second appeal, for which financial hardship and misplaced records were cited as reasons, both rejected by the High Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Settled principles regarding “sufficient cause” in condonation of delay cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that neither financial constraints nor misplacement of records are valid or sufficient grounds for condoning prolonged delays in filing appeals.
- Upholds that courts will not entertain appeals with inordinate delays unless substantial, cogent reasons are provided.
- Counsels must ensure that applications for condonation of delay are backed by strong factual justification and timely action.
- Double dismissal (both on limitation and merits) demonstrates the high threshold for overturning concurrent lower court findings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the appellant’s plea for condonation of 607 days’ delay in filing the second appeal.
- The appellant’s reasons — financial hardship and misplaced trial court records — were specifically evaluated and found to be wholly insufficient.
- The judgment reiterates the principle that “sufficient cause” for condonation requires convincing and substantial explanation; vague or generic claims (like financial or administrative issues) are inadequate.
- On merits, the Court noted that both the trial court and first appellate court had concurrently found that the appellant neither possessed nor owned the suit property, a finding confirmed by the appellant’s own cross-examination.
- With neither legal nor factual error in the courts below, and the explanation for delay lacking substance, both the condonation application and appeal were dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Sought condonation of 607 days’ delay in filing the appeal.
- Pleaded that certified copy of judgment was received timely but filing was delayed due to lack of finances and misplacement of trial court records.
Respondent:
- As per judgment text, no specific arguments by respondent recorded; reply to condonation application was taken on record.
Factual Background
The appellant instituted a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of a disputed property. However, during cross-examination, the appellant admitted that the respondents were in possession and were listed as owners in municipal records. The trial court concluded that the appellant had falsified pleadings and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, on 01.03.2017, reappraised the evidence and affirmed the findings. The appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court with a delay of 607 days, seeking condonation of delay due to financial shortage and misplacement of records.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was the key statutory provision examined.
- The Court interpreted “sufficient cause” strictly, emphasizing the need for satisfactory and substantial explanation.
- No expansive construction was given; financial difficulties or misplacement of records were held to not fulfill the statutory standard for condonation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; judgment was authored solely by Justice Deepak Gupta.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were introduced in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds the established law requiring cogent, substantial reasons for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.