Allowed¶29

Pritam Chand v. Karam Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jul 2026CMP.M/2288/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 of the Limitation Act; 99 days vs 191 days delay per Registry; illiterate litigant unaware of limitation; delayed receipt of certified copy (applied 12.9.2025, received 15.9.2025); liberal approach over technicalities; negligence no bar to condonation; conditional costs of Rs. 5000/-; appeal against First Appellate Court decree of District Judge, Hamirpur; trial decree by Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2014; CMP(M) No. 2288 of 2025; RSA to be registered; decided 15.7.2026 by Virender Singh, Judge; Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- to the non-applicant; appeal directed to be registered, costs to be tendered on or before the next date of hearing; matter listed on 5.8.2026.

Pritam Chand Vs Karam Singh — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal - stated as 99 days by the applicant but reported as 191 days by the Registry - should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Even negligence on the part of the applicant does not disentitle him to the relief sought; the application could be allowed subject to costs of Rs. 5000/-.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

While deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal approach is to be adopted by the Court and the matter should be decided on merits, and not on the basis of technicalities.

¶24

Key takeaways

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- to the non-applicant, and delay in filing the appeal was ordered to be condoned.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay - delay of 99 days claimed by applicant, 191 days as per Registry report - in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2025 of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. ('the First Appellate Court'), whereby the applicant's appeal against dismissal of his suit (Civil Suit No. 43 of 2014, decided 15.2.2022, by learned Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur) had failed. Grounds for condonation: certified copy applied for on 12.9.2025 and received on 15.9.2025; applicant illiterate and unaware of limitation requirements; contacted counsel as soon as he learnt of them. Non-applicant opposed, terming the delay inordinate, intentional, deliberate and due to negligence. Held: in deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal approach is to be adopted and the matter decided on merits, not technicalities; even negligence did not disentitle the applicant to relief. Application allowed subject to costs of Rs. 5000/- payable to the non-applicant; delay condoned; appeal to be registered; costs to be tendered on or before the next date; listed on 5.8.2026. (Virender Singh, Judge.)

¶1

Pritam Chand vs. Karam Singh

¶2

CMP(M) No. 2288 of 2025

¶3

15.7.2026

¶4

Present: Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶5

Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent/non-applicant.

¶6

CMP(M) No. 2288 of 2025

¶7

Applicant Pritam Chand has filed the accompanying appeal, against the judgment and decree, dated 24.5.2025, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2022, titled as, ‘Pritam Chand versus Karam Singh’.

¶8

Vide judgment and decree, dated 24.5.2025, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, which has been filed by the applicant against the judgment and decree, dated 15.2.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2014, titled as, ‘Pritam Chand versus Karam Singh’.

¶9

The accompanying appeal has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 99

¶10

days, whereas, as per the report of the Registry, delay is of 191 days.

¶11

Condonation of delay has mainly been sought on the ground that after passing the judgment by learned First Appellate Court, the certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied on 12.9.2025 and the same was received on 15.9.2025.

¶12

According to the applicant, he is an illiterate person and not aware about the legal position about the limitation period, for setting aside the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

¶13

In nut-shell, delay has been sought to be condoned mainly on the ground that he was not aware about the legal technicalities about filing the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation. As soon as the applicant came to know about the requirement of filing the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, he contacted his counsel.

¶14

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant.

¶15

When, put to notice, the application has been contested by non-applicant on the ground that the application is totally misconceived and not maintainable, as the applicant has miserably failed to

¶16

show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, which has been described in the reply as ‘inordinate delay’.

¶17

In addition to this, a prayer has been opposed on the ground that the case put forward by the applicant, does not fall within the definition ‘sufficient cause’.

¶18

Furthermore, the prayer, so made in the application, has also been opposed on the ground that delay appears to be intentional, deliberate, due to negligence and on account of lack of diligence.

¶19

The reply filed by the non-applicant is also supported by the affidavit of the non-applicant.

¶20

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 13. Heard.

¶21

The suit of the applicant was dismissed by the learned trial Court and he, unsuccessfully, assailed the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court by filing the appeal, before the learned First Appellate Court, which has also been dismissed.

¶22

Although, in the reply, it has been mentioned that there is lack of bonafide and negligence on the part of applicant, but the reply filed by the non-applicant is totally silent about the object,

¶23

which the applicant is going to achieve in not preferring the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented to do so, on account of his legal illiteracy.

¶24

Even otherwise, while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, liberal approach is to be adopted by the Court and the matter should be decided on merits, and not on the basis of technicalities.

¶25

Even for the negligence, the applicant is entitled for the relief, as prayed for in the application, as the application can be allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 5000/-.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid facts, the application under consideration is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the nonapplicant.

¶27