The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) filed by the legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff, affirming that an inordinate delay of over 1,500 days in filing an appeal cannot be condoned when the party was actively participating in execution proceedings during that period.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the matter, held that a litigant who is “selectively active” in approaching the court—responding to execution but failing to appeal the original decree—cannot claim to have been prevented by “sufficient cause.”
Background of the Case
The case originated from a Suit for Possession and Declaration filed by the late Hira Devi regarding a DDA Slum Flat in Kalkaji, New Delhi. She sought possession of the property and a declaration that documents dated March 27, 2000, were forged and void.
On April 19, 2017, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by limitation as the plaintiff had knowledge of the documents since the year 2000. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff failed to prove her possession or the alleged non-execution of documents.
Subsequently, an execution petition was filed by the respondents in October 2017. The appellant participated in these execution proceedings on several dates in 2018 but did not file an appeal against the 2017 judgment until September 4, 2021—after she was dispossessed from the property by a court bailiff in March 2021.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant challenged the District Court’s refusal to condone a delay of 1,589 days (referred to as 1,504 days in some records), arguing that:
- The Trial Court’s judgment was “patently illegal” as it applied a three-year limitation to a suit for possession based on title, which should attract a 12-year limit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
- The appellant was a senior citizen suffering from serious ailments and financial hardship, further aggravated by the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Defending execution proceedings did not amount to an abandonment of the statutory right of appeal.
The respondents maintained that the appellant was well aware of the decree since 2017 and actively resisted execution for years, proving that there was no “sufficient cause” preventing the filing of the appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court scrutinized the grounds for delay and the appellant’s conduct. On the claim of medical and financial incapacity, the court noted that no medical documents were placed on record to substantiate that the appellant was “incapacitated to such an extent that he was prevented from approaching the Appellate forum.”
Critically, the court observed that the appellant had appeared before the Executing Court on February 13, 2018, March 20, 2018, and September 27, 2018. Justice Krishna remarked:
“He despite his participation in the Execution Proceedings, chose not to prefer the Appeal. He was not only aware of the Decree, but also resisted it, till the Possession was taken on 18.03.2021. If he could contest the Execution proceedings, there is no reason why he could not have filed the Appeal on time.”
Regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court pointed out that the 90-day limitation period had expired long before the pandemic began. Even if the pandemic period were excluded, the delay from May 2017 to March 2020 remained unexplained.
The Court emphasized the principle that procedural rules of limitation are not mere technicalities. Quoting the Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2013), the judgment noted:
“In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification… tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
The High Court concluded that the appellant had remained “selectively active,” approaching the court only for execution matters while neglecting the statutory timeline for the appeal.
The Decision
The Court found no merit in the appeal, stating that the District Judge was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay.
“The conduct, behaviour and attitude of the Appellant, who has, despite actively participating in the Execution Proceedings since 2018, preferred the Appeal only after the conclusion of Execution on 18.03.2021,” the Court held, disentitled the party from relief. The Regular Second Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Case Title: Hira Devi (Since Decd) Thr LR vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors.
- Case No.: RSA 13/2026 & CM APPL. 3665/2026
