Dismissed¶10

Sita Ram Gupta v. Krishna Chaurasiya

Condonation of delay – Section 5, Limitation Act

Delhi HC29 Jan 2026RFA/97/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court single-judge order (Neena Bansal Krishna, J., 29.01.2026) in RFA 97/2026, Sita Ram Gupta v. Krishna Chaurasiya: application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1168 days' delay in filing the Regular First Appeal dismissed; grounds of diabetes, wife's illness and poverty rejected (diabetes not disabling; appellant contested 2023 execution proceedings; Legal Aid available); warrants of attachment noted as trigger for filing; RFA and pending applications dismissed. Keywords: condonation of delay, limitation, execution, warrants of attachment, legal aid.

What did the court decide?

Diabetes, the ailment from which the Appellant suffers, is not a disabling disease and therefore does not excuse the delay. ¶6

Sita Ram Gupta Vs Krishna Chaurasiya — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~85

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA 97/2026, CM APPL. 6044/2026 and CM APPL. 6046/2026

¶4

SITA RAM GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Naveen Jha, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

KRISHNA CHAURASIYA .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 29.01.2026

¶9

CM APPL. 6045/2026

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Application is disposed of.

¶12

RFA 97/2026, CM APPL. 6044/2026 and CM APPL. 6046/2026

¶13

CM APPL.6044/2026 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1168 days in filing of present Regular First Appeal.

¶14

It is submitted that the Applicant is suffering from severe diabetes and also does not have mental condition to pursue his case further. His wife is also very ill and was admitted in the Hospital many times. Some medical documents have been annexed with this Application.

¶15

It is further submitted that the Appellant was unable to arrange the legal expenses to pursue the case, as he is a poor man. Therefore, the delay of 1168 days in filing of present Regular First Appeal be condoned.

¶16

Submissions heard and record perused.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 31/01/2026 at 14:35:06

¶19

Essentially, the ailment from the Appellant is suffering is stated to be diabetes, which is not a disabling disease.

¶20

Pertinently, as per the submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellant, the execution was filed in the year 2023, which is being contested by the Appellant. If he was in a position to contest his execution, there is no reason, why he could not have filed the Appeal.

¶21

In case, there was indigency, Legal Aid could have been availed by the Appellant. It is further submitted that the warrants of attachment have been issued, which is the reason why present Appeal has been filed after delay of 1168 days.

¶22

No ground made out for condoning the delay of 1168 days in filing of present Regular First Appeal.

¶23

Application is dismissed. Consequently, Regular First Appeal along with pending Applications is dismissed.

¶24

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

¶25

JANUARY 29, 2026/ R

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 31/01/2026 at 14:35:06

Sita Ram Gupta v. Krishna Chaurasiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram Gupta v. Krishna Chaurasiya

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

Anwar Khan Vs Aslam Pervez

Anwar Khan Vs Hazi Mohd.Shamshad

Anwar Khan Vs Aslam Pervez

Sh. Sudershan Vs Sh. Dharmender Sharma & Anr.

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Gbl Chemical Limited & Ors. Vs State of Gnctd of Delhi & Anr.