Yash Pal Singh v. Kehar Singh and Others and Others
Case Details
CR-6601-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6601-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 22.09.2025 Decided on : Yash Pal Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Kehar Singh and Others and Others ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order India has been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Yashpal Singh, impugning the order 2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed dated 04.09.2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed 2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed 2025 whereby the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequentially, the first appeal filed by the petitioner on and, consequentially, the firs 2025 was t appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2025 was rejected as time- -barred. 2. The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit The factual matrix, as urged before this Court, is that the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learn ed Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur and the 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur and the ed Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur and the ioner is a man of claim of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed. The petitioner is a man of claim of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed. The petit counter-claim of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed. The petit advanced age i.e. 72 years and suffers from multiple ailments advanced age i.e. 72 years account of his and suffers from multiple ailments. On account of his revious counsel and, consequently, infirmity he was unable to contact his previous counsel and, consequently, revious counsel and, consequently, infirmity he was unable to contact his p remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on remained unaware of the judgment and decree. He states that the first occasion on which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in which he became cognisant of the final order was when he received summons in the Execution Petition on 22.07.2025. Thereupon he took steps the Execution Petition on and filed the first hereupon he took steps and filed the first appeal on 05.08. 2025, though the appeal was delayed by 235 days. The learned 05.08.2025, though the appeal was delayed by 235 days. The learned 2025, though the appeal was delayed by 235 days. The learned TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6601-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties, refused to condone the delay on the were ground that the explanation was not satisfactory and observed that there were ground that the explanation was not satisfactory and observed that there ground that the explanation was not satisfactory and observed that there defendants who were equally affected and yet did not take steps. T defendants who were equally affected and yet did not take steps seven co-defendants who were equally affected and yet did not take steps . The ecision in the case lower Court further relied upon the principle in the ratio of the decision in the case lower Court further relied upon the principle in the ratio of the d lower Court further relied upon the principle in the ratio of the d State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand of State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand State of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Gopi Chand (2019) 2 ACJ 256 (SC) 256 (SC) cited by the respondent, which holds that mere negligence cited by the respondent, which holds that mere negligence of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the of counsel does not ordinarily constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Limitation Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before this Court as neither intentional nor due to negligence in the sense that the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence in the sense as neither intentional nor due to negligence in the sense that the delay w ather it arose out of the petitioner’s genuine contemplated in the authorities. Rather it arose out of the petitioner’s genuine ather it arose out of the petitioner’s genuine contemplated in the authorities incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once incapacity to act because of old age and ailments, and that he acted promptly once he received the execution summons. t was further urged that the right of appeal is received the execution summons. It was further urged that the right of appeal is t was further urged that the right of appeal is a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the a substantive right and, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be petitioner to ventilate his defence and contest the decree, the delay ought to be may deem fit, including imposition of condoned subject to such terms as this Court may deem fit, including imposition of may deem fit, including imposition of condoned subject to such terms as this Court costs to meet any prejudice caused to the respondents. costs to meet any prejudice caused to the respondents. costs to meet any prejudice caused to the respondents. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Court is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic is aware that applications for condonation of delay are to be decided on pragmatic and equitable grounds he settled approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act itable grounds. The settled approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act he settled approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the is to weigh the length of delay, the explanation offered, the bona fides of the applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party applicant, the absence or presence of mala fides, and whether the objecting party ice which cannot be compensated by costs. Applying these would suffer prejudice which cannot be compensated by costs. Applying these ice which cannot be compensated by costs. Applying these would suffer prejud guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a guiding principles to the present case, I find that the petitioner has given a plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical plausible and credible explanation for the delay. His advanced age and the medical TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6601-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - es which materially distinguish the present disabilities he avers are circumstances which materially distinguish the present es which materially distinguish the present disabilities he avers are circumstanc case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of case from those where delay has been sought to be excused solely on account of the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the the inadvertence or neglect of an advocate. The decision relied upon by the respondents in Gopi Chand Gopi Chand’s case (supra) is distinguishable on facts. T here the distinguishable on facts. There the delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory delay was attributable to counsel’s omission where there was no satisfactory explanation and the appellant could have taken steps, explanation and the a here the petitioner explains ppellant could have taken steps, here the petitioner explains or contact his previous that due to infirmity he could not manage his legal affairs or contact his previous that due to infirmity he could not manage his legal affairs that due to infirmity he could not manage his legal affairs lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. lawyer and only became aware of the decree upon receipt of execution summons. 5. defendants were similarly affected, Further, though it is true other co-defendants were similarly affected, defendants were similarly affected, Further, though it is true other co able, that fact alone does not render the petitioner’s explanation inherently improbable, that fact alone does not render the petitioner’s ex that fact alone does not render the petitioner’s ex be assessed on their individual circumstances and capacity to act differ and must be assessed on their individual circumstances and capacity to act differ and must individual circumstances and capacity to act differ and must own merits. The presence of co defendants who did not act does not automatically he presence of co-defendants who did not act does not automatically defendants who did not act does not automatically establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, establish deliberate laches on the part of this petitioner. The delay of 235 days, gh sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily though sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily gh sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily gh sizeable, is not inordinate in the circumstances narrated and is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, explained by the petitioner’s physical incapacity and late knowledge of the decree, and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate and there is no material on record to show mala fide motive or deliberate suppression. In the balance of convenience and in the interest of doing substantial the balance of convenience and in the interest of doing substantial the balance of convenience and in the interest of doing substantial justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be justice, the petitioner’s right to seek appellate adjudication ought not to be extinguished by a rigid application of limitation where a plausible cause exists, t extinguished by a rigid application of limitation extinguished by a rigid application of limitation where a plausible cause exists, the trial of real controversies on merit rather than their being ends of justice favour trial of real controversies on merit rather than their being trial of real controversies on merit rather than their being ends of justice favour foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring foreclosed on technical grounds. That said, the Court is conscious that ensuring fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the fairness to the respondent is also important; to compensate for the delay and the condition for condonation, the petitioner shall pay inconvenience caused, and as a condition for condonation, the petitioner shall pay condition for condonation, the petitioner shall pay inconvenience caused, and as a costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondents. costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondents. costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondents. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6601-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - 6. 2025 is set aside to the Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 is set aside to the Accordingly, the impugned order dated Accordingly, the impugned order dated e delay of 235 days extent it dismissed the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 235 days extent it dismissed the application for condonation of delay, th extent it dismissed the application for condonation of delay, th in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner in presenting the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal filed by the petitioner 2025 is ordered to be restored and admitted for hearing on merits. T 2025 is ordered to be restored and admitted for hearing on merits on 05.08.2025 is ordered to be restored and admitted for hearing on merits . The of this petitioner shall deposit the sum of Rs.10,000 as costs with the Registry of this petitioner shall deposit the sum of Rs.10,000 as costs with the Registry petitioner shall deposit the sum of Rs.10,000 as costs with the Registry Court within four weeks from the date of passing of Court within four weeks from the date of this order for being paid to the passing of this order for being paid to the in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand respondents, in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand in default of such deposit, the benefit of this order shall stand forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as forfeited and the impugned order of the lower appellate Court shall be treated as restored. 7. 8. The present revision petition is allowed in the above-said terms. The present revision petition is allowed in the above The present revision petition is allowed in the above
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 22, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document