Ajit Singh through His Lrs Vs Ajmer Kaur and Others

Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court dated 14.07.2015 and by the learned First Appellate Court dated 30.08.2018.

¶14

The present regular second appeal has been filed along with an application being CM-5960-C-2025 for condonation of delay of 1682 days i.e. 4 years 7 months and 9 days in filing the appeal. In the application it has been stated that the father of the appellants was the one who was contesting the case. It is further stated that the father of the appellants met with an accident in the year 2017 resulting into damage to his brain and his normal functioning was disturbed and that he passed away on 06.09.2021. As per the discharge

¶15

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.20 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶16

RSA-1721-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶17

summary (Annexure A-14) the father of the appellants was admitted in Ivy Hospital on 10.08.2017 and was discharged on 12.08.2017. Thereafter, the father of the appellants was again admitted to Sohana Hospital on 24.05.2021 and was discharged on 14.06.2021. Post 14.06.2021, till the filing of the present appeal, there is no document on the record explaining the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR [2024 (2) RCR

¶19

(Civil) 571] has held as under :

¶20

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first

¶21

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.20 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶22

RSA-1721-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶23

ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

¶24

27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the `Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants’.

¶25

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs

¶26

vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969] has held as under :

¶27

“59. 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 their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer

¶28

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.20 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶29

RSA-1721-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶30

causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. [See: N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123]

¶31

60. The bedrock of law on limitation flows from two ageold Latin maxims; interest reipublicae up sit finis litium and vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, which mean; “it is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation” and “the law assists those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights”, respectively. The former emphasizes that protracted litigation puts a strain on the judicial system and undermines the law's role in dispute resolution, and so the public interest requires that disputes be resolved in some final form rather than continuing indefinitely to drain the resources of courts and the parties. While the later connotes that a person who has slept on his rights may be denied enforcement of the same when the resulting delay would cause an unfair prejudice. 61. What flows from the aforesaid is that the dominant

¶32

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.20 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶33

RSA-1721-2025 (O&M) -5-

¶34

objective underlying the law of limitation is that any lis cannot be kept in a state of flux or uncertainty, doubt or suspense. Public interest demands that at some point finality be put to the litigation. It is in this context that the Limitation Act, prescribes the specific points of time from which the period of limitation begins to run for the institution of actions or recourse to litigation. On expiry of such period, no action can be initiated save and except where the court condones the delay for a sufficient cause. A party who is insensible to the value of civil remedies, and who does not assert his claim with promptitude is denied the ability to enforce even an otherwise rightful claim. [See: DDA v. Tejpal, (2024) 7 SCC 433]”

¶35

XXXX XXXX XXXX

¶36

“262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigation's, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this

¶37

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.20 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶38

RSA-1721-2025 (O&M) -6-

¶39

everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under section 100 of the CPC, herein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.”

¶40

There is no sufficient cause shown for condoning the delay. Infact from 2021 to 2025 there is absolutely no reason forthcoming except for a general ground for condoning the delay. In view thereof, no ground is made out to condone the delay of 1682 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application being CM-5960-C-2025 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. As a result, the present regular second appeal is also accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶41

19.02.2026 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE

¶42

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶43

AMAN JAIN 2026.02.20 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Ajit Singh through His Lrs v. Ajmer Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh through His Lrs v. Ajmer Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamkaur Singh @ Kaura and Anr. Vs Swaranjit Kaur and Ors.

Jitender Bhatia Vs Bimla Ahuja and Others

Sonia and Anr. Vs Mandeep @ Monu and Ors.

H.C. Arora, Advocate Vs Anuradha S. Chagti and Another

Nirmala Devi and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Charanjit Kaur Vs Chairman Uhbvnl and Another