Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh Vs Gulzar Ahmad Sheikh and Ors.

Through the medium of present petition the petitioners have challenged order dated 17.10.2025, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Budgam, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against order dated 04.06.2025 read with order dated 29.08.2025 passed by learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Budgam has been dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

¶15

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶16

Mr. G.A.Lone, Advocate, who is on caveat, accepts notice

¶17

on behalf of the respondents. Caveat shall stand discharged.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

It appears that two different suits came to be filed by the petitioners as well as by the respondents before the Court of learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Budgam. The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from causing any interference into their peaceful possession over the land measuring 02 kanals 11 marlas under khasra Nos.102 and 109, 01 kanal and 02 marlas under khasra No. 105, 01 kanal and 08 marlas under khasra No.108 and 12 marlas under khasra No.107 situated at Sundergund Tehsil and District Budgam.

¶20

The respondents also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners before the trial Court seeking a declaration that they are owners and in possession of land measuring 09 kanals and 18 marlas alongwith shamilat land covered under survey Nos. 102 and 109 situated at village Sundergund Tehsil and District Budgam. Both the suits were consolidated for their trial by the learned trial Court.

¶21

Vide order dated 04.06.2025, learned trial Court allowed the application of the respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to subject matter of the suit, while as application of the

¶22

CM(M) No.481/2025 Page 2

¶23

petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was dismissed and interim order granted in their favour was vacated.

¶24

The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Budgam. The appeal was filed on 03.09.2025, meaning thereby, there was delay of more than two months in filing the appeal. The petitioners also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned Appellate Court vide the impugned order dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioners have failed to carve out sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and consequently the appeal was also dismissed.

¶25

The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by learned Appellate Court on the grounds that there was not a huge delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the appeal and, as such, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is extremely harsh. It has been contended that the petitioners have a good case on merits and in case their appeal is allowed to be dismissed on technical grounds of limitation, it would work very harshly against them. It has also been contended that the learned trial Court has passed the order which was under appeal before the learned Appellate Court, contrary to the legal position

¶26

CM(M) No.481/2025 Page 3

¶27

by relying upon the report of the Commissioner, who could not have adjudicated the factum of possession.

¶28

There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have filed appeal against the order passed by learned trial Court after a delay of sixty one days. The reason assigned by the petitioners for the delay is that they had applied for the revenue documents but the same were not provided to them because the system was facing some technical issues after operation Sindoor. It has been further pleaded that one of the family members of the petitioners was suffering ailment, as a result of which, the family members got distracted and the petitioners lost their contact with counsel, which resulted in delay. It has also been pleaded that the petitioners have come to know about the impugned order only when the Tehsildar concerned visited the spot.

¶29

Before dealing with the reasons assigned by the petitioners for condonation of delay, the legal position with regard to acceptability of explanation for delayed filing of proceedings is required to be considered. It is a settled law that length of delay is not relevant while considering the explanation for delay. The only factor which emerges is that the Court while considering application for condonation of delay in filing proceedings is acceptability of the explanation. It is also a settled law that the Court should be liberal in allowing the

¶30

CM(M) No.481/2025 Page 4

¶31

application for condonation of delay, as the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties on merits, so as to administer substantial justice. While rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek remedy promptly. The explanation that may be tendered for the delay should not be fanciful and concocted. The Court has to keep in mind that on account of delay the right is accrued in favour of the other side and, as such the application for condonation of delay has to be treated with utmost care and caution. Merits of the case are not required to be considered at the time of taking a decision on an application for condonation of delay.

¶32

With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now analyse the explanation tendered by the petitioners before the Appellate Court for condoning the delay.

¶33

The first reason that has been assigned by the petitioners is that they could not get the revenue documents from the record room as there was some technical snag in the system after operation Sindoor. In this regard, if we have a look at the order of learned trial Court, it is clear that revenue record was produced by the petitioners before the said Court. Even in this petition the English translated version of Record of Rights seems

¶34

CM(M) No.481/2025 Page 5

¶35

to have been prepared on 23.10.2023, meaning thereby that the petitioners were in possession of the revenue record even prior to operation Sindoor. Therefore, their contention that due to technical snag in the system post operation Sindoor they could not get the revenue record, appears to be factually incorrect.

¶36

The other reason that has been assigned for delayed filing of appeal is that one of the family members of the petitioners was suffering from ailment, as a result of which they could not contact their counsel. In this regard it is to be noted that the petitioners have not named the family member who was suffering from ailment nor have they placed on record any medical record to substantiate the said assertion. Mere vague assertions in the application for condonation of delay without any supportive material and without any particulars and dates cannot form the basis for condoning the delay.

¶37

Lastly, it has been contended that the petitioner came to know about passing of impugned order through Tehsildar concerned. In this regard a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court would show that the same has been passed in presence of the counsels appearing for the parties. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim ignorance about passing of order by the learned trial Court.

¶38

CM(M) No.481/2025 Page 6

¶39

In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, it is clear that the petitioners have made casual assertions in their application for condonation of delay without giving any particulars and without supporting the said assertions with a credible material. The assertions made by the petitioners in the said application appear to be factually incorrect, besides being vague. The filing of application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal before a Court is not a mere formality. A litigant seeking condonation of delay in filing the proceedings has to specifically explain the circumstances that prevented him from filing the proceedings within the stipulated period of limitation. Making vague and unsubstantiated assertions in an application for condonation of delay, would not be sufficient to carve out a case for condonation of delay in filing the proceedings.

¶40

The present case is a classical example where the petitioners have filed a casual application for condonation of delay before the learned Appellate Court in the hope that the same may be allowed by the said Court, which unfortunately for them, has been rejected by the Court. Rightly so, because the petitioners have not even specifically pleaded the circumstances which prevented them from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶41

CM(M) No.481/2025 Page 7

¶42