Hari Singh Vs Smt Pushpinder Bhatia

It is submitted that the Appellant is an old man aged about 85 years. He lost his son unfortunately during Covid-19 on 22.08.2020 and was under severe depression. The Appellant had taken the responsibility of daughterin-law and two minor grandchildren. After the demise of the son various issues cropped up in the life of the Appellant. The son of the Appellant had taken a business loan by mortgaging a factory land at Mayapuri from Cholamandalam. The loan was insured by the HDFC Life Insurance Company. However, after the demise of the son, the Insurance Company HDFC denied the insurance claim and the Appellant came under immense financial distress and depression because of which he was unable to attend the Suit proceedings. It became so difficult for the Appellant that he could

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 28/07/2026 at 11:34:55

¶16

not even taken care of the basic expenses of his family and there was no other male member in the family to take care of their needs and requirements.

¶17

The Appellant had no option but to sell the third floor of his residential house to cope up with the financial stress. He could not consult and instruct his counsel to file the present Appeal on time. Because of his immense mental trauma and depression, he locked himself in the house and severed all the connections with the outside world.

¶18

When he came out of the depression, he came to know that the Judgment has been passed against him, for which he contacted his counsel and instructed him to file the Appeal.

¶19

In December, 2023, when the Bailiff visited the premises of the Appellant for execution of the Decree, he came to know that a Judgment has been passed against him and is required to file an Appeal against the Judgment. The Appellant was not aware about the proceedings in the Civil Suit as the Appellant had stopped even taking the calls of his counsel, because of depression.

¶20

The Judgment was passed on 11.11.2022 and the time for filing the Appeal expired on 09.02.2023. The Appellant had no option but to consult his counsel to file the accompanying plea on time. The Appellant has a case on merits, which have gone unheard. The Appeal has been filed with a delay of 333 days.

¶21

A prayer is, therefore, made that his Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be allowed and the delay of 333 days in filing the Appeal be condoned.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the grounds for

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 28/07/2026 at 11:34:55

¶25

seeking condonation of delay, are not tenable. The Appellant was duly served in the Execution proceedings on 25.02.2023, as has been noted in the Execution proceedings. The Appellant had intentionally not appeared and there is no merit in the Application seeking Condonation of Delay. Submissions heard and record perused .

¶26

The Suit of the Plaintiff had been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for Recovery of Rs.9,90,000/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum. By way of the present Application, the Appellant seeks the condonation of delay of 333 days, in filing the Appeal. 10. The Appellant has submitted that he is an old man of 85 years and after the demise of his son on 22.08.2020, the entire responsibility of the business as well as of his deceased son’s family, comprising his wife and the children, has fallen upon him.

¶27

It is indeed an unfortunate circumstance, wherein the Appellant has been put in grave distress on account of the demise of the son. 12. It is significant to note that the Notice of the Execution proceedings was served upon the daughter-in-law of the Appellant on 25.02.2023, despite which the present Appeal has been preferred on 12.01.2024. The explanation given by the Appellant for such delay in filing the Appeal despite having got the Notice of Execution in February, 2023, is that though they all are living in the same house, but he is not in talking terms with the daughter-in-law.

¶28

This assertion is patently incorrect in view of his own submissions in the Application that he has been taking care of the wife and the children of his son. For him to assert that they all are living in the same house is not logical and it is quite evident that this plea of discord with his daughter-in-

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 28/07/2026 at 11:34:55

¶31

law, has been pleaded for the first time during the course of argument only to explain the delay in filing this Appeal on 12.01.2024, since February, 2023, when he was served in the Execution proceedings. This plea does not find mention in the condonation Application.

¶32

It is also pertinent to note that Appellant had contested the Suit and there is no averment to show that he was not participating in the proceedings or that he was not aware of the passing of the impugned Judgment dated 11.11.2022. He has claimed that because of the demise of his son on 22.08.2020, he went into a severe depression which is quite understandable, but the impugned Judgment is after more than two years, i.e. on 11.11.2022. 15. The Appellant has not been able to explain any reason, whatsoever, for condonation of delay of 333 days. Hence, the Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal also is dismissed. Pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.

¶33

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

¶34

JULY 20, 2026/ va

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 28/07/2026 at 11:34:55

Hari Singh v. Smt Pushpinder Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh v. Smt Pushpinder Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Jupiter Tower Private Limited Vs Shri Rc Tandon Dead through Lrs

Parag Goel Vs Ashok Madaan

Sumitra Vs Rajesh Kumar

Mange Ram Giri Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

M/ S Lgf Sysmac India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/ S Krystallo

Brij Lal and Sons Vs Union of India