Shri Dharampal & Ors. Vs Shri.Gangabishan — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shri Dharampal & Ors. Vs Shri.Gangabishan — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside of the Impugned Order dated 13.01.2023; remand of the Regular First Appeal to the learned District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for consideration on merits; parties directed to appear before that court on 30.01.2026; pending application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the Regular First Appeal (RCA No. 08/2020) ought to be treated as excusable, i.e., whether the Impugned Order dated 13.01.2023 dismissing the condonation application and consequently the appeal should be set aside.

Court's answer

The delay in filing the appeal is about 120 days and not 202 days as noted in the Impugned Order; the 90 days available to the Appellant had been inadvertently added.

Ratio / Principle

On considering the reasons given and taking a sympathetic view of the circumstances pleaded by the Appellant, together with the corrected delay of about 120 days, the court proceeded to interfere with the Impugned Order.

Key takeaways

The Impugned Order dated 13.01.2023 is set aside and the Regular First Appeal is remanded to the learned District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to be considered on merits.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna), Order dated 16.01.2026 in RSA 156/2023 (with CM APPL. 43625/2023): Regular Second Appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by Shri Dharampal & Ors. against the judgment dated 13.01.2023 in RCA No. 08/2020, whereby their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay - and consequently their Regular First Appeal - had been dismissed. On checking the record, the court found that the Civil Judge's judgment was dated 31.05.2019 and the appeal was filed on 18.01.2020, so the actual delay was about 120 days, not the 202 days recorded in the Impugned Order (the 90-day limitation period had been inadvertently added). Considering the reasons given - reliance on the medical documents of the appellant's father (December 2018 - February 2019) showing Cerebral Atrophy, the father's death in September 2019 and the ensuing grieving - and taking a sympathetic view, the court set aside the Impugned Order dated 13.01.2023, remanded the Regular First Appeal to the learned District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for consideration on merits, allowed and disposed of the second appeal and the pending application, and directed the parties to appear before the District Judge on 30.01.2026.

$~41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- RSA 156/2023, CM APPL. 43625/2023 (for calling court record)

SHRI DHARAMPAL & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Mr. Satvik Rai, Mr. Kartik Rai, Mr. Vineesh Tyagi, Advocates.

versus

SHRI.GANGABISHAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Vats & Mr. Hemant Vats, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R % 16.01.2026

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed on behalf of the Appellants against the Judgment dated 13.01.2023 in RCA No. 08/2020 whereby the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of delay along with the Appeal, has been dismissed and consequently, the Appeal has been dismissed.

In the Impugned Order, it has been noted that there is a delay of about 202 days in filing the Appeal. However, the record shows that the Judgment of the Civil Judge was dated 31.05.2019 and the Appeal was filed on 18.01.2020. Inadvertently, the 90 days available to the Appellant to prefer the Appeal, has been added and there is a delay of about 120 days and not 202 days as mentioned in the Impugned Order.

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 21/01/2026 at 13:48:09

It is also pertinent to note that the Appellant had relied upon the medical documents of his father for the month of December, 2018 and January, February, 2019 to show that the father was suffering from Cerebral Atrophy and the Appellant was busy in the treatment of the father and was suffering huge expenditure The father has died in September, 2019. It was submitted that it is on account of the ailment of the father and thereafter, grieving on account of his death that the delay occurred.

While considering the reasons given and also taking a sympathetic view of the circumstances, pleaded by the Appellant and that there is a delay of about 120 days and not 202 days as was noted, the Impugned Order dated 13.01.2023, is hereby set-aside and the Regular First Appeal is remanded back to the learned District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to be considered on merits. The Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. The pending Application also stands disposed of.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts on 30.01.2026.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

JANUARY 16, 2026/RS

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 21/01/2026 at 13:48:09