Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th January, 2025
DHANPAL SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajender Yadav, Adv. through V.C.
Through: Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. through V.C.
JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 194 days in filing the accompanying petition against the order dated 15.12.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (‘ADJ’), Saket Courts, Delhi in CS DJ 737/2022.
2. By impugned order, the learned ADJ dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) on the ground that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff within the period of limitation. The learned ADJ noted that the petitioner had raised two grounds for rejection of plaint that are, improper valuation of the suit, and the ground of limitation. It was noted that the respondent had already sought an amendment in the plaint for valuation of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction. It was further noted that the suit was not barred by limitation. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 was rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay in filing the present petition emanated from the fact that the parties being real brothers, were attempting to settle the matter. He submits that the respondent had previously settled his claim in relation to some other ancestral property with another family member.
4. He submits that in the same manner, the applicant was desirous of settling the dispute with the respondent. He submits that for the same reason the accompanying petition could not be filed in a timely manner. He submits that the delay was neither intentional and nor deliberate.
5. In accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or application may be admitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided that there exists ‘sufficient cause’ that prevented the party from approaching the Court within the period of limitation.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a very recent case of H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, observed as under:
7. The ground raised by the applicant is only that the accompanying petition and the application could not be filed since the applicant was hoping to settle the matter with the respondent. It is pertinent to mention that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages condonation of delay only on the ground that the party, due to some adequate and enough reason, was prevented to approach the Court within the period of limitation.
8. Upon careful consideration, it is evident that the application filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay is bereft of any such reasons disclosing any sufficient cause. The onus lies on the applicant to establish a credible and justifiable explanation for failing to file the petition within the prescribed time frame.
9. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with impugned order since the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay are not sufficient to hear the petition on merits.
10. The present application is dismissed.
11. The present petition also stands dismissed on the ground of delay.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 29, 2025