Dismissed¶32

Rakesh Bhardwaj v. Vipul Gaur & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Mar 2025C.R.P./68/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, C.R.P. 68/2025, Justice Amit Mahajan, order dated 03.03.2025 — condonation of delay of 47 days in filing civil revision petition against dismissal of Order VII Rule 11 CPC application; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; counsel's mother's illness held insufficient cause; litigant vigilance; H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 relied on; petition dismissed on ground of delay.

What did the court decide?

A revision petition challenging an order of the learned Trial Court is required to be filed within a period of 90 days. ¶17

Rakesh Bhardwaj Vs Vipul Gaur & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 47 days in filing the revision petition challenging the order dated 31.08.2024 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶13

Court's answer

A revision petition challenging an order of the learned Trial Court is required to be filed within a period of 90 days.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The ground of the learned counsel's mother's illness, with nothing else stated, is not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition.

¶19

Key takeaways

The duty of the litigant to be vigilant of his own rights is not diluted by assigning the case file to a lawyer; rights accrued in favour of one party cannot be reopened on such cursory grounds.ratio¶19
Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an appeal or application may be admitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation only if there exists 'sufficient cause' that prevented the party from approaching the Court within the period of limitation.ratio¶22
Upon consideration of the totality of circumstances — including that much has flown since the impugned order and plaintiff evidence stands completed — the Court finds no reason to condone the delay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — revision petition under C.R.P. 68/2025 filed with 47 days' delay against order dated 31.08.2024 dismissing petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in CS DJ No. 112/2020 — sole explanation offered was illness of learned counsel's mother, held insufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — litigant's duty to be vigilant of own rights not diluted by assigning case file to lawyer; rights accrued cannot be reopened on cursory grounds — plaintiff evidence already complete, matter listed for defendant evidence — relying on H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, delay not condoned; petition dismissed on the ground of delay and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.R.P. 68/2025

¶4

RAKESH BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Jyoti Babbar, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

VIPUL GAUR & ANR. .....Respondent Through:

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 03.03.2025

¶8

CM APPL. 12568/2025 (exemption from filing original / certified copies / clear copies / typed copies/ copies with proper margins of annexures)

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

C.R.P. 68/2025 & CM APPL. 12567/2025 (stay) , CM APPL. 12569/2025 (condonation of delay of 47 days in filing the present revision petition)

¶12

By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’), passed by the learned District Judge-03, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CS DJ No. 112/2020, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) was dismissed.

¶13

The present petition is filed belatedly. The petition is also supported with an application (CM APPL. 12569/2025) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking condonation of delay of 47 days in filing the present petition.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

C.R.P. 68/2025

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/03/2025 at 12:28:35

¶17

It is settled that a revision petition challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be filed within a period of 90 days.

¶18

The impugned order was passed way back on 31.08.2024 and the present petition, as per the petitioner, was filed on 31.01.2025 though it is taken up for consideration for the first time today, that is, on 03.03.2025.

¶19

The only reason stated in the application for seeking condonation of delay is that the mother of the learned counsel for the petitioner had fallen ill, and that the learned counsel had to take care of her mother. Nothing else has been stated. 8. The ground taken, in the opinion of this Court, is not sufficient for condoning the delay. 9. It is common tendency of the litigant to put the blame of filing the case belatedly on the lawyer. The duty of the litigant to be vigilant of his own rights is not diluted on assigning the case file to a lawyer. The issue cannot be allowed to remain hanging taking a ground that the lawyer, despite being asked, failed to take steps. Rights accrued in favour of one party cannot be reopened on such cursory grounds.

¶20

On being pointedly asked, it is informed that the plaintiff evidence has since been completed and the matter is now listed for defendant evidence.

¶21

Much water has also flown since passing of the impugned order.

¶22

In accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or application may be admitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided that there exists ‘sufficient cause’ that prevented the party from approaching the Court within the

Page 2 of 3

C.R.P. 68/2025

period of limitation.

¶27

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a very recent case of H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 , observed as under:

¶28

“ 15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. 16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

¶29

17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

¶30

(emphasis supplied)

¶31