Dismissed¶¶19

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Jitender Yadav

Delhi HC16 Apr 2026RFA/364/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 457 days' delay refused; RFA 364/2026 and pending CM Applications dismissed by Delhi High Court (Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, 16.04.2026). Appeal against Order XXXVII CPC decree of Rs.3.5 lakhs plus 8% p.a. interest dated 07.10.2024; Ss. 5 & 14 Limitation Act with Order XLI Rule 3A CPC invoked; antecedents include Order XXXVII Rule 7 application, Review, dismissed-in-default CM(M) of 07.11.2025, and Section 47 CPC execution objections; warrants of arrest stayed against Rs.1.5 lakhs deposit (drafts of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50,000/-); no explanation of delay after November 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; condonation of delay of 457 days refused, CM Application dismissed, and the Appeal along with pending Applications dismissed. ¶¶19

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs Jitender Yadav — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; condonation of delay of 457 days refused, CM Application dismissed, and the Appeal along with pending Applications dismissed.

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 457 days in filing the Regular First Appeal against the decree dated 07.10.2024 should be condoned under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Order XLI Rule 3A CPC (CM Application 24639/2026).

¶¶8

Court's answer

Even if the time till 07.11.2025 (when the CM(M) was dismissed in default) is excluded, there is no explanation of delay from November, 2025 till the filing of the Appeal; the Defendant/Appellant had full opportunity and time to file the Appeal in time.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Instead of challenging the decree by way of Appeal after the CM(M) was dismissed on 07.11.2025, the Appellant chose to appear in the execution proceedings and pursue his objection under Section 47 CPC, which were dismissed in March, 2026, before preferring the present Appeal.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

The Appellant failed to disclose any cause for condonation of delay; the CM Application for condonation of delay is dismissed, and consequently the Appeal along with pending Applications is also dismissed.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Neena Bansal Krishna, J.) dismissed RFA 364/2026 and the accompanying CM Applications. The Appeal lay against a summary decree dated 07.10.2024 under Order XXXVII CPC, whereby the Defendant's Leave to Defend Application was dismissed for delay and the Suit was decreed for Rs.3.5 lakhs with pendent lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. The Appellant sought condonation of 457 days' delay (Ss. 5 & 14 Limitation Act read with Order XLI Rule 3A CPC), citing successive remedies: an Order XXXVII Rule 7 CPC application dismissed 06.11.2024, a Review dismissed 16.05.2025, and a CM(M) dismissed in default 07.11.2025. He then pursued execution objections under Section 47 CPC (dismissed 24.03.2026) before filing this Appeal. Holding that even excluding time till 07.11.2025 no cause for delay from November 2025 onwards was disclosed, the Court refused condonation and dismissed the Appeal with pending Applications.

¶1

$~40

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA 364/2026, CM APPL. 24639/2026, CM APPL. 24640/2026 & CM APPL. 24641/2026

¶4

PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Kailash Kumar Sharma, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

JITENDER YADAV .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 16.04.2026

¶7

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2024 whereby the Leave to Defend Application of the Defendant/Appellant was dismissed on account of delay and the Suit of the Respondent was decreed in the sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs along with pendent lite and future interest @ 8% p.a.

¶8

The Appeal is supported with CM Application 24639/2026 under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Order XLI Rule 3A CPC for condonation of delay of 457 days in filing the present Appeal.

¶9

It is explained that the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent has been decreed vide Order dated 07.10.2024 by learned District Judge under Order XXXVII CPC.

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 20/04/2026 at 13:29:58

¶12

The Appellant filed an Application under Order XXXVII Rule 7 CPC for condoning the delay of 18 days in putting appearance under Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC. The Application, however, was dismissed on 06.11.2024. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred a Review Application on 19.12.2024 and was dismissed on 16.05.2025. This Order was again challenged in CM(M) before this Court but it got dismissed in default on 07.11.2025.

¶13

The Appellant failed to pursue the CM(M) because the parties agreed to settle the matter before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the warrants of arrest were issued on 19.01.2026 and the Appellant filed his objections under Section 47 CPC on 24.01.2026 for cancellation of the warrants of arrest.

¶14

On 28.01.2026, the warrants of arrest was stayed by the learned Trial Court subject to deposit of Rs.1.5 lakhs, which were deposited by way of two demand drafts of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50,000/- on 16.02.2026 and 13.03.2026, respectively. The matter is still pending in execution. The objections filed by the Appellant under Section 47 CPC, were dismissed on 24.03.2026. Hence, the Appeal has thereafter being filed and has been listed today for consideration.

¶15

Even if all the submissions of the Appellant are accepted that he is genuinely pursuing his remedies by way of Application under Order XXXVII Rule 7 CPC, Review and CM(M), then too after the CM(M) got dismissed on 07.11.2025. Thereafter, instead of challenging the judgment by way of Appeal, the Appellant chose to appear in the execution and proceed with his objection under Section 47 CPC. The objections got dismissed in March, 2026 and now the present Appeal has been preferred.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 20/04/2026 at 13:29:58

¶18

It is clearly evident that the Defendant/Appellant had full opportunity and time to file the Appeal in time. Even if the time till 07.11.2025 is excluded, then too, there is no explanation of delay from November, 2025 till today, i.e., the filing of Appeal.

¶19

The Appellant has failed to disclose any cause for condonation of delay. The Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal along with pending Applications, is also dismissed.

¶20

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶21

APRIL 16, 2026 N

¶22

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 20/04/2026 at 13:29:58

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Jitender Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Jitender Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Kumar Vs Lakshmi Chhabra

Smt. Laxmi Rawat & Anr. Vs Sh.Daulat Singh Bisht

Ashwani Bajaj through Lr Seema Bajaj Vs Sushil Sachdeva & Anr.

Akeel Ahmed @ Vakeel Vs Sirajuddin

Gautam Bhatia Vs Smt Sushma Nanda

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gayatri Devi