Applicant sought condonation of a 139-day delay in appealing a judgment regarding rental period extension. The court rejected the explanation of winter vacation and lack of vigilance, dismissing the application for condonation of delay.
Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~59
MEGHNA RAJENDRA KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary and Mr. Shubham Rai, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Nitin and Mr. Nishu, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 03.02.2025 CM APPL. 6424/2025
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 10/02/2025 at 15:03:32
the complacent.
“3. That the Appellant has filed SLP (C) D.No. 50059 of 2024 against order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA (C) No. 1018 of 2024, by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has granted time till 15.02.2025 to the Appellant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises vide order dated 13.12.2024.
4. That the Appellant came is know about the above said order on 13.12.2024 when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order dated 13.12.2024 in SLP (C) D. No. 50059 of 2024 on the basis of order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 23319 of 2024.
Therefore, The Appellant requested his counsel to file the present LPA in this Hon'ble Court but due to winter vacation, it could not be filed. Now the present petition is being filed. The delay in filing the LPA is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances mentioned above.
5.That there is no wanton latched on behalf of the Appellant but due to the circumstances mention above. This is very good case on merit and Appellant is may suffer irreparable loss if this Hon'ble court will not condone the delay, which will not be compensated in terms of money.”
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
FEBRUARY 3, 2025/ rl
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 10/02/2025 at 15:03:32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 139 days in filing the appeal by virtue of winter vacation and lack of vigilance constitutes sufficient cause to condone.
Whether the applicant's failure to approach the court while other affected persons did so excuses the delay.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MEGHNA RAJENDRA KUMAR
UNION OF INDIA
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
