Dismissed¶10

Sachin Sethi v. Kamal Bassi

Condonation of delay – 495 days

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026RFA/42/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, RFA 42/2026, decided 15.01.2026 by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. Condonation of 495-day delay in filing Regular First Appeal (Section 96 CPC) against 12.07.2024 Order XXXVII CPC decree of Rs. 20,00,000 with 9% interest refused under Section 5 Limitation Act; sister's illness/death and mother's death held insufficient absent averment of contribution to treatment; appellant aware of leave-to-defend dismissal, 138 NI Act complaint (2022), execution appearance 26.09.2025 and bank account attachment; application and appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Appellant failed to show any ground whatsoever for condonation of the delay of 495 days in filing the appeal against the decree dated 12.07.2024. ¶9

Sachin Sethi Vs Kamal Bassi — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 495 days in filing the Regular First Appeal against the decree dated 12.07.2024 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The Appellant failed to show any ground whatsoever for condonation of the delay of 495 days in filing the appeal against the decree dated 12.07.2024.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Reliance on the sister's illness and demise as a ground for condonation is not appreciable, since there is no averment that the Appellant sponsored, contributed to, or took care of her medical treatment.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Appellant was aware throughout - his leave to defend application had been dismissed, the Section 138 NI Act complaint of 2022 was contested by him, and he appeared in execution on 26.09.2025 - yet chose not to file the appeal in time.ratio¶8
The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay is dismissed, and consequently the Regular First Appeal alongwith pending applications also stands dismissed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - 495 days - Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against summary decree dated 12.07.2024 (Order XXXVII CPC) for Rs. 20,00,000 with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. - application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed. Grounds of the sister's brain and breast ailment and demise (07.12.2024), the mother's death (21.08.2025) and financial hardship rejected: no averment that the Appellant sponsored or contributed to the treatment; the Appellant was aware throughout - his leave to defend application had been dismissed, the Section 138 NI Act complaint of 2022 was contested by him, he appeared in execution on 26.09.2025, and his bank account stood attached. Held: no ground whatsoever for condonation; the CM application and the appeal with pending applications stand dismissed. Coram: Neena Bansal Krishna, J; decided 15.01.2026.

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA 42/2026, CM APPL. 2662/2026, CM APPL. 2663/2026, CM APPL. 2664/2026

¶4

SACHIN SETHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Singh, Ms. Shweta Priyadarshini, Ms. Nishi Singh and Ms. Bhagwati, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

KAMAL BASSI .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 15.01.2026

¶7

CM APPL. 2661/2026

¶8

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 12.07.2024 whereby the leave to defend Application filed by the Appellant was dismissed.

¶9

Present Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 495 days in filing the Appeal.

¶10

It is submitted in the Application that the Appellant has been undergoing extreme financial stress and hardship as his real sister Seema Mehta suffered from serious ailment of brain and breast for a long period and finally expired on 07.12.2024. Execution Petition No. 406/2025 has been filed. There is a delay of 495 days which is neither deliberate not

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 21/01/2026 at 13:45:56

¶13

intentional and may be condoned.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Smt. Santosh Sethi, mother of the Appellant has died on 21.08.2025 and because of financial hardship, the Appeal could not be filed in time. It is also submitted that Respondent is none other than his own nephew being the son of the sister of the Appellant and the Respondent had stolen the cheque which has been made the basis of the judgment and decree.

¶15

Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent who has appeared on advance Notice, submits that the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act got dismissed on the technical grounds. The Appellant did not contest the said Petition even though the Appellant had appeared, and no defence of cheque being stolen, was ever taken. Furthermore, it is not that cheque which is the sole basis of decree, but the learned District Judge has also referred to the Bank transaction while decreeing the Suit.

¶16

It is further submitted that after the expiry of the Appeal period, the Execution was filed before the learned District Judge, Saket which had to be transferred to the Rohini Court because of the jurisdiction. The Appellant had appeared in Execution on 26.09.2025. He was well aware of the decree and also of the Execution proceedings.

¶17

There is no cogent explanation forthcoming to explain the delay. Pertinently, the Bank account of the Appellant has been attached, which has compelled the Appellant to approach this Court. There is no ground whatsoever to condone the delay in filing of the Appeal and the same may be dismissed.

¶18

Submissions heard and record perused.

¶19

Interestingly, Leave to Defend Application had been filed by the

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 21/01/2026 at 13:45:56

¶22

Appellant which got dismissed on 07.12.2024, which was well within the knowledge of the Appellant. Not only this Complaint Case under Section 138 NI Act was filed in the year 2022, which was also contested by the Appellant. The Appellant throughout has been aware and has chosen not to file the Appeal.

¶23

Now, a specious ground has been taken that there was financial difficulties on account of the illness of the sister. There is no averment that the medical treatment was being sponsored by the Appellant or he in any way, was contributing for the treatment or in taking care of the sister. Merely to make an unfortunate event of demise of the sister as the basis of seeking condonation, is not appreciable. The Appellant has not been able to show any ground whatsoever for condonation of delay of 495 days in filing the Appeal against the Decree dated 12.07.2024 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a under Order XXXVII CPC.

¶24

The Application is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal alongwith pending Applications, also stands dismissed.

¶25

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶26

JANUARY 15, 2026 N

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 21/01/2026 at 13:45:56

Sachin Sethi v. Kamal Bassi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Sethi v. Kamal Bassi

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

N.Suguna Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Sewa Singh Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

P.S. Gahlaut Vs Union of India & Ors.

Air India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Pacific Travels

Sh Ashok Kumar Vs Shri Mukesh Kumar (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors.

Babita Chopra Vs the State (Gnct), Delhi and Anr.