Mr. Kuldeep Kumar and Mr. Nilofar Akhtar, Advs v. RAJEEV SURI

Judgment

1. The present Appeal, under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, read with Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, 19081, challenges the Judgement dated 20.01.20202 in the suit bearing CS (OS) No. 279/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. By way of the Impugned Judgement, the learned Single Judge adjudicated upon the said suit and partially decreed the Suit in favour 1 CPC 2 Impugned Judgement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.12.2025 14:11:01 RFA(OS) 70/2025 Page 1 of 19 of the Appellant and against the Respondent for the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only), while dismissing the suit for the relief of specific performance against the Appellant. 3. The present Appeal was initially filed on 16.04.2025 and was later re-filed on 15.11.2025. Therefore, the present Appeal is also accompanied by two Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 19633, read with Section 151 of CPC. 4. The Application bearing C.M. No. 72346 of 2025, dated

04.04.2025, is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1883 days in filing the captioned Appeal. 5. In addition, the Application bearing C.M. No.72347 of 2025, dated 27.05.2025, is filed seeking condonation of delay of 182 days in re-filing the said Appeal, after it was returned with objections. 6. Before adverting to the merits of the present Appeal, we consider it appropriate

to first adjudicate the accompanying applications seeking condonation of delay in filing as well as re-filing of the Appeal. The consideration of the merits of the Appeal is contingent upon the outcome of these two applications. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT: 7. The learned counsel for the Appellant has, in the first instance, submitted that the Impugned Judgement was passed on 20.01.2020 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. He fairly admitted that the Appeal ought to have been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, he would submit that the same could not be filed owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent nationwide lockdown, 3 Limitation Act Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.12.2025 14:11:01 RFA(OS) 70/2025 Page 2 of 19 which continued till June 2021. 8. The learned counsel for the Appellant, while placing reliance on the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, urged that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stood excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period, and the period of the limitation had, accordingly, commenced afresh from 01.03.2022. 9. The learned counsel has, in order to substantiate this contention, sought to derive support from the Judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in In re: Cognizance for extension of limitation (Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021), particularly paragraph Nos. 3, 5(I) and 5 (III), which are reproduced herein below: “3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID-19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. ***** 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A.No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: is restored and I. The order dated 23.03.2020 continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. *** III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of remaining, with effect limitation Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.12.2025 14:11:01 RFA(OS) 70/2025 Page 3 of 19

01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.”

10. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the further delay from 01.03.2022 until the filing of this present Appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. It would be submitted that the Appellant had lost eyesight vision from his right eye and underwent treatment at The Healing Touch Eye Centre, and in February 2022, the Appellant contracted Hepatitis C Virus and was admitted for treatment of the same in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Dwarka. 11. Learned counsel for the Appellant would further submit that the Appellant was diagnosed with hernia, for which he took the treatment, and in turn, underwent surgery at the Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. In addition, the Appellant also suffered from a knee ailment and received treatment from Ch. Brahm Prakash Ayurved Charak Sansthan. He was, thereafter, referred to Dr. Raju Kalra Clinic, where a knee surgery was advised. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant, while placing reliance on University of Delhi vs. Union of India & Ors.4, would contend that it is a well-settled law that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach while considering applications for condonation of delay and that the bona fide conduct of a litigant must always be kept in view. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellant would also place reliance on the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (D) Thr. L.Rs. v. Union of India5, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court affirmed the reasoning of the High Court that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and that some lapse on the part of a litigant,