The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed with a “colossal delay” of 1883 days, ruling that the benefit of the Supreme Court’s orders extending the limitation period during the COVID-19 pandemic is not available to litigants whose limitation period had already expired before March 15, 2020.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal, observing that the appellant failed to provide a “sufficient cause” for the inordinate delay.
Background of the Case
The appeal, Sunil Kumar v. Rajeev Suri, challenged a judgment dated January 20, 2020, passed by a Single Judge in a civil suit (CS (OS) No. 279/2018). The Single Judge had partially decreed the suit in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 but dismissed the relief of specific performance.
The appeal against the 2020 judgment was initially filed on April 16, 2025, and later re-filed on November 15, 2025. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed two applications: one seeking condonation of a delay of 1883 days in filing the appeal, and another seeking condonation of 182 days in re-filing.
Arguments of the Appellant
The appellant contended that the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent nationwide lockdown. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in In re: Cognizance for extension of limitation (Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020), the counsel argued that the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, stood excluded from the limitation period.
Furthermore, the appellant cited multiple medical ailments as reasons for the delay, including loss of vision in the right eye, Hepatitis C, a hernia surgery, knee ailments, and heart problems. The counsel argued that the Court should adopt a liberal approach, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in University of Delhi vs. Union of India & Ors., and urged that “substantial justice” should prevail over technical considerations.
Court’s Analysis
The Court first addressed the applicability of the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation extension. The Bench noted that under Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, the period for filing an appeal from a decree of the High Court to the same Court is 30 days.
In this case, the limitation period commenced on January 20, 2020, and expired on February 21, 2020.
The Bench observed:
“The limitation for the present Appeal, therefore, expired well before 15.03.2020 and, indisputably, does not fall within the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022.”
Consequently, the Court held that the appellant could not draw any advantage from the Supreme Court’s relaxation orders.
Regarding the medical grounds, the Court scrutinized the medical records and found them insufficient to justify a delay of over five years. The Court noted that the appellant’s claim of losing eyesight was supported only by routine OPD consultations for “low vision,” none of which required hospitalization. Similarly, no record was produced for the alleged Hepatitis C treatment.
Regarding the hernia and heart ailments, the Court found that the total period of hospitalization substantiated by records amounted to only seven days out of the total delay of 1883 days.
The Bench remarked:
“We are afraid that four OPD consultations, on different occasions, spread over nearly five years, by no measure, either inspire our confidence or disclose a ‘sufficient cause’, which could have prevented the Appellant from approaching this Court.”
The Court also pointed out discrepancies in the appellant’s claims regarding the timing of his hernia surgery, noting “contradictory versions” that undermined the credibility of the explanation.
Legal Principles Applied
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. and Others v Special Deputy Collector (LA), reiterating that the law of limitation is based on public policy.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench stated:
“In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.”
While acknowledging the principle of taking a liberal approach as cited in University of Delhi, the Court clarified that such an approach does not imply automatic condonation of “colossal delay” without a reasonable explanation.
Decision
The Court rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, stating that the explanation offered was “neither bona fide nor sufficient.”
Addressing the subsequent delay of 182 days in re-filing, the Court noted that the appellant cited a finger injury which required only one day of hospitalization. The Court termed the appellant’s approach “lackadaisical” and observed that defects in the filing were not cured promptly.
Concluding the judgment, the Bench held:
“As a necessary corollary, and as a result of the Appellant being unable to substantiate the entertaining of the Appeal on merits, having failed to satisfy this Court on the threshold mandate of approaching the Court in a diligent and time bound manner… the present Appeal stands dismissed.”
No order as to costs was made.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. Rajeev Suri
- Case Number: RFA(OS) 70/2025 & CM APPL. 72345-72347/2025
- Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
