Lal Chand deceased through LRs.Smt. Nirmalal Devi Vs Rulia Ram deceased through lrs. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Lal Chand deceased through LRs.Smt. Nirmalal Devi Vs Rulia Ram deceased through lrs. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in moving the application for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default on 14.08.2024 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, i.e., whether the applicants' explanation amounts to 'sufficient cause'. +1 more

Court's answer

'Sufficient cause' has nowhere been defined, but per the settled proposition of law relied on by the Court, circumstances beyond the ordinary control of the applicants fall within the definition of 'sufficient cause'.

Ratio / Principle

The applicants' attempt to place the onus of non-appearance on their counsel is too short to condone the delay in moving the restoration application; the appeal had remained on board after restoration on 08.11.2017 and was dismissed in default only because no one appeared on 14.08.2024.

Key takeaways

Accepting the plea advanced in the application as sufficient ground for restoration of an appeal dismissed in default would lead to no end to litigation, as every litigant wishing to prolong the matter would come forward with such a plea.ratio¶24
The alleged ground on which restoration was sought does not fall within the term 'sufficient cause'; accordingly, the condonation application and the application for restoration of the appeal are liable to be dismissed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay / restoration of appeal dismissed in default — RSA No. 444 of 2008 (Lal Chand (deceased) through LRs v. Rulia Ram (deceased) through LRs), decided 20.07.2026 by Virender Singh, J. The appeal, admitted on 04.09.2008, was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.07.2016, recalled and restored on 08.11.2017, and again dismissed in default on 14.08.2024 when neither counsel nor appellants appeared. Applicants moved CMP No. 1788 of 2026 under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. for restoration, with CMP(M) No. 87 of 2026 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, pleading the counsel's sudden unconsciousness and the appellants' bonafide impression that the appeal would be heard in due course. The Court held that 'sufficient cause' comprises circumstances beyond the applicants' ordinary control; that accepting such pleas would open the door to endless litigation; and that the explanation offered — shifting the onus of non-appearance onto counsel in an appeal that had remained on board — did not amount to sufficient cause. Both applications, and with them the restoration application, were dismissed.

Lal Chand (deceased) through LRs and Ors. Vs Rulia Ram (deceased) through LRs

RSA No. 444 of 2008

20.07.2026

Present: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants/applicants.

Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the respondents/nonapplicants.

CMP(M) No. 87 of 2026 & CMP No. 1788 of 2026

The order of mine shall dispose of two above noted applications, which have been moved by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal, which has been dismissed in default, by this Court on 14.08.2024.

As per the application (CMP No. 1788/2026), which has been filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of C.P.C., the appeal was dismissed in default, by this Court on 14.08.2024. According to the applicants, the counsel could not put appearance before this Court on 14.08.2024, as the said counsel, all of a sudden, fell unconscious and was taken out of station for treatment. 3. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to restore the appeal to its original number.

Along with the application, CMP(M) No. 87 of 2026, for condoning the delay in moving the application has also been filed.

The delay in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned, on the ground, that in the above titled appeal, an application for brining on record the LRs of sole respondent Rulia Ram, has been filed, which was taken up on 24.04.2024 and thereafter, the said application was allowed and the matter was listed for 12.06.2024 for filing Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d).

On 12.06.2024, when the case was taken up, the counsel for the appellants was under the impression that a formal order would be passed. As such, he could not put appearance and matter was, thereafter, listed on 14.08.2024. On that day, learned counsel for the appellants, all of a sudden, fell unconscious and was taken out of station for treatment, therefore, he could not appear on that day. As such, the order, which has been sought to be recalled, has been passed.

According to the applicantsappellants, they remained under a bonafide impression that the main appeal would be taken up for final hearing in due course. Due to bonafide mistake, the applicants appellants could not ascertain the factual position from

their counsel, nor, could pursue the matter for recalling the order dated 14.08.2024.

It is also their case that this fact skipped from their mind and they could not move appropriate application. However, one of the appellants, Mohinder Singh contacted his counsel at Shimla and apprised him about the fact that it came to know from reliable sources that the appeal has now been dismissed in default. Thereafter, the counsel for the applicants appellants ascertained the factual position from the record, regarding the fate of their appeal, especially the order dated 14.08.2024, whereby the appeal has been dismissed in default.

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that the nonappearance of the counsel, as well as, the appellants on 14.08.2024, is due to the bonafide mistake and not intentional. As such, a prayer has been made to condone the delay.

The application for restoration of the appeal, as well as, the present application has been contested by the respondents/nonapplicants, denying the factual position as mentioned in the applications. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application, as well as, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Perusal of the record shows that the appeal in question was admitted by this Court on 04.09.2008. Thereafter, on 25.07.2016, on account of the non appearance of the counsel for the appellant, appeal has been dismissed, for nonprosecution. The said order has been recalled on 08.11.2017, and the appeal was restored to its original number.

Thereafter, the appeal remained on board. However, on 14.08.2024, the said appeal has again been dismissed in default. The futile attempt of the applicants to put onus of non appearance upon their counsel, is too short to condone the delay in moving the application.

It is not the case, in the present case that after the admission of appeal, the same has not remained on board. As per zimni orders, when the appeal was restored to its original number on 08.11.2017, thereafter, the same remained on board for hearing and ultimately, when no one has put appearance on 14.08.2024, the same has been dismissed in default.

It seems that the appellants/applicants are playing hide and seek with the Court, as, after getting the appeal restored to its original number, they have not pursued the matter diligently and the explanation given by the appellants/applicants in the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is too short to fall within the definition of sufficient cause.

Although, the term ‘sufficient cause’ has no where been defined, but according to the settled proposition of law, the circumstances, which are beyond the ordinary control of the applicants, falls within the definition of ‘sufficient cause’.

The explanation qua the fact that on 08.09.2024, one of the appellants, Mohinder Singh contacted his counsel and apprised him that he came to know from reliable sources that the appeal filed by them, has been dismissed, is too short, as the appeal, at the relevant time, was listed for bringing on record the LRs of sole respondent. This fact has been taken on record on 27.06.2023. Thereafter, the said application was filed and notices were issued to the proposed LRs and subsequently, on 12.06.2024, when no one has put appearance on before the appellants, then, the order has been passed, by this Court.

If the plea, as taken in the application, is taken to be as sufficient ground for restoration of the appeal, dismissed in default, then, there would be no end to litigation, as, every litigant, who wants to prolong the matter, would come forward with such type of plea.

Considering the said fact, the alleged ground, upon which, the restoration has been sought, does not fall within the term ‘sufficient cause’. As such, the application under consideration is liable to be dismissed and so also the application for restoration of the appeal.

Ordered accordingly.

( Virender Singh ) Judge

20^th July, 2026

( Pramod Kumar )