Dismissed¶27

Baldev v. Putli Devi (Deceased through LRs Kumar Singh and Others)

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2025CMP.M/246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 46 days delay; sufficient cause; explanation versus excuse; discretionary power; Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81; Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India 2023 (10) SCC 531; suit for possession; sale deed dated 30.03.2010; counter claim fraud undue influence without consideration; suit dismissed counter claim allowed; First Appellate Court; findings attained finality; res judicata; appeal devoid of merit; CMP(M) No.246 of 2024; High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla; Bipin Chander Negi, Judge; application dismissed

What did the court decide?

The length of delay is immaterial; condonation of delay is a discretionary power whose exercise must depend upon the sufficiency of cause shown. ¶12

Baldev Vs Putli Devi (Deceased through LRs Kumar Singh and Others) — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the 46-day delay in filing the appeal against the judgment of the Courts below should be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The length of delay is immaterial; condonation of delay is a discretionary power whose exercise must depend upon the sufficiency of cause shown.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

'Sufficient cause' means that the party did not act in a negligent manner and there was no want of bona fide on its part (per Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81).

¶13

Key takeaways

The Court must distinguish between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'.ratio¶18
From a perusal of the application, it is evident that it is devoid of any explanation for delay in filing the appeal.ratio¶22
The appeal so preferred is devoid of any merit.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Bipin Chander Negi, J., oral, 01.04.2025), CMP(M) No.246 of 2024: application seeking condonation of a 46-day delay in filing an appeal against the judgments of the Courts below dismissed as devoid of merits. The Court held that the length of delay is immaterial, condonation being a discretionary power dependent on sufficiency of cause, and that 'sufficient cause' requires that the party did not act negligently and there was no want of bona fide on its part (relying on Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81); drawing on Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & Others v. Union of India, 2023 (10) SCC 531, it observed that courts must distinguish an 'explanation' from an 'excuse'. The application was found devoid of any explanation for the delay. Background extracted: the applicant's suit for possession based on sale deed dated 30.03.2010 was dismissed and the respondents' counter claim (alleging fraud, undue influence, no consideration) was allowed; his single appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court since no appeal had been preferred against the counter claim, whose findings had attained finality (res judicata); the appeal was accordingly held devoid of merit.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMP(M) No.246 of 2024 Date of Decision: 01^st April, 2025

¶3

Baldev .....Applicant/Appellant Versus

¶4

Putli Devi (deceased) through LRs.

¶5

….non-Applicants/respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Applicants: Mr. Loveneesh S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a), 1(b), 1(e), 1(f) and 1(g).

¶9

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

¶10

The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below.

¶11

Admittedly, the delay in the case at hand is of 46 days.

¶12

The length of delay is immaterial. The condonation of delay is a discretionary power. Exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of cause shown and the degree of its acceptability thereof. The expression “sufficient cause” is to be duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there

¶13

was a want of bona fide on its part (Basawaraj v. Land

¶14

Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81).

¶15

¶16

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

¶18

3. The Court must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment reported as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Representatives & Others v. Union of India and Another, 2023 (10) SCC 531 . The relevant extract of the same are as under:

¶19

“…...Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

¶20

An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”

¶21

4. From a perusal of the application, it is evident that it is

¶22

devoid of any explanation for delay in filing the appeal, in the case at hand.

¶23

¶24

5. The applicant was plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The applicant had filed a suit for possession based on sale deed dated 30.03.2010. The present respondents had filed a counter claim. In the counter claim, it was alleged that the sale deed dated 30.03.2010 was a result of fraud, undue influence and was without any consideration. The suit so filed by the present applicant was dismissed and the counter claim filed by the respondents was allowed.

¶25

6. Feeling aggrieved of the same, a single appeal was preferred by the present applicant. Since no appeal had been preferred against the counter claim, therefore, the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant/plaintiff before the trial Court, as findings in counter claim had attained finality and there existed a res judicata, insofar as those findings were concerned.

¶26

7. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the appeal so preferred is devoid of any merit.

¶27

8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶28

01^st April, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)

Baldev v. Putli Devi (Deceased through LRs Kumar Singh and Others)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev v. Putli Devi (Deceased through LRs Kumar Singh and Others)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Sai Electronics Vs State Bank of India and Another

Collector Land Acquisition Vs Paras Ram

Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs Adarsh Bala

Rajinder Kumar Vs Ravinder Kumar and Another

Mahinder Singh Vs M/S Shree Balaji Jewellers and Anr.

Jagmohan Sood Vs Vinay Sood