The High Court reaffirms that delays in filing appeals will not be condoned without satisfactory evidence of sufficient cause. Unsupported medical excuses are insufficient. This judgment upholds existing precedent and strengthens judicial scrutiny of limitation condonation applications in civil matters, binding subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1693/2025 of JAMIL AHMAD Vs PREM WATI CNR PHHC010767762025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana; persuasive for other jurisdictions. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing principles requiring sufficient cause to be strictly proved for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. |
| Type of Law | Civil Law—Limitation, Specific Performance |
| Questions of Law | What constitutes “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay in filing second appeals under the Limitation Act in the absence of proper evidence? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on judicial requirement for strict proof of “sufficient cause” under the Limitation Act, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence over unsubstantiated narrative explanations. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in parallel fact patterns. |
| Follows | Consistent with established requirements for condonation under the Limitation Act—strict and not merely on assertions or affidavits without evidence. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Condonation of delay applications must be supported by credible documentary evidence. Bare affidavits or unsupported medical claims will not suffice.
- The judgment reinforces the necessity of proving “sufficient cause” with specificity and evidence under the Limitation Act.
- Where factual findings are concurrent and reasoned, challenges on appeal are unlikely to succeed unless clear illegality or perversity is shown.
- Lawyers should ensure that applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are thoroughly documented, especially in cases involving medical or personal excuses for delay.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant sought condonation of a 557-day delay in filing second appeal, alleging short-term memory loss and old age, yet adduced no medical records.
- The court found the explanation to be a “figment of imagination,” constructed only to justify the delay, and not substantiated by any reliable evidence.
- Reaffirming settled legal principle, the court declined to condone delay solely on the basis of affidavit, especially in the absence of corroborative documentation.
- On merits, after examining the evidence, the court found that both the Trial and First Appellate Court had decreed the suit for specific performance rightly. The agreement to sell was proved by attesting witnesses, including one called by the appellant himself, and the registration process was validated by official record and witness testimony.
- Appellate interference was found unwarranted in the absence of illegality or perversity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Claimed old age (63 years), short-term memory loss, and file misplacement as grounds for condonation, supported only by affidavit.
- On merits, denied execution and receipt of consideration; alleged that only a loan transaction occurred, and signatures/thumb impressions were taken on blank papers for security.
Respondent
- Relied on registration and attesting witnesses to establish the agreement to sell.
- Emphasized that the stand of the appellant regarding loan was not proved and defendant’s own witness supported the plaintiff’s evidence.
Factual Background
The defendant appealed against two concurrent judgments decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 01.01.2013 for consideration of ₹12,50,000 (with ₹8,00,000 paid as earnest money). The appellant sought condonation of 557 days’ delay in filing the second appeal, claiming short-term memory loss and file misplacement, but produced no medical record. Both lower courts had rejected the defense that the agreement was fake or linked only to a loan, and accepted the plaintiff’s version as proved through witnesses and registered documents.
Statutory Analysis
- The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, reiterating that “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay must be proven by satisfactory evidence—not merely alleged or presumed.
- The court scrutinized the standards under the Limitation Act for extension of time in civil appeals.
- There was no “reading in” or “reading down”; rather, the statutory language was applied in its ordinary, strict sense as guided by precedent.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or directions issued; the judgment follows the established process on limitation applications.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed existing legal principles regarding condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.