Delhi High Court – Orders
Delhi Development Authority vs 1. Praveen Sharma 2. Smt. Parveen Kochar … on 12 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 64/2023, CM APPL. 3446/2023
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Jaya Goyal, Advocate
versus
1. PRAVEEN SHARMA
2. SMT. PARVEEN KOCHAR
3. SUB-REGISTRAR, JANAKPURI
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rikky Gupta & Ms. Ananya
Singh, Advocates for R-1
Ms. Pavitra Kaur and Ms. Shreya
Mishra, Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 12.02.2026
CM APPL. 3449/2023:
1. An Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed by the
Appellant, Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) for condonation of delay
of 999 days, in filing the present Appeal.
2. It is submitted that the impugned Judgement and decree was passed
on 29.11.2019, and the Appeal could be filed by 27.02.2020. The COVID-
19 Pandemic started spreading in February, 2020, and a complete lockdown
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:32:43
was announced on 22.03.2020.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant could send a copy along with
the file to DDA, only on 20.08.2020. Thereafter, the file moved in various
Departments and somehow, it was marked to the wrong Department. It came
back to the Office of CLA, only on 05.04.2022.
4. Thereafter, immediate action was taken and the Panel Lawyer was
instructed, who submitted her opinion on 16.04.2022. An urgent Meeting
with SLO, was called on 27.04.2022 and the decision was taken to file the
Appeal and also to file the objections in the Execution. The file was
entrusted to the Counsel on 04.05.2022 for drafting of the Appeal, and
thereafter, it was sent for approval on 30.05.2022. It is submitted that on
account of aforesaid circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic, there was
a delay of 999 days in filing the Appeal.
5. An Additional Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the DDA, giving
the exact details of the date and the movement of the file. It is submitted that
that being an old file pertaining to 1997, it took some time to trace out the
Allotment file as some annexures were required to be filed, along with the
Appeal.
6. It is further explained that on 03.06.2022, the file was put up by the
Dealing Assistant to sign the Application and the Affidavit prepared by the
Panel Lawyer. On 10.06.2022, the file was received back by the MIG
Department. Thereafter, on 04.07.2022, the file was put up and sent to
Senior A.O. (Legal) for remitting Rs.8,900/- on account of total payable
Court Fee. On 17.08.2022, the file was received back in the MIG
Department with the remarks dated 12.08.2022, and on 18.08.2022, file was
put up to Higher Authority to sign the Appeal. Thereafter, the file was
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:32:43
finally sent to Panel Lawyer on 24.08.2022.
7. Thereafter, on 31.10.2022, the Panel Lawyer requested vide Letter
dated 31.10.2022, to hand over the file. As the file was an old file pertaining
to the year 1997, it took some time to trace out the allotment file.
8. On 04.11.2022, both the files as requested by the Panel Lawyer, were
handed over to her. But since the pages in Trial Court file were dim,
therefore, all the documents were typed, which took considerable time.
Immediately after receiving the typing documents, the counsel for the
Appellant filed the Appeal before this Court, on 22.12.2022.
9. It is submitted that the delay occurred on account of aforesaid
reasons and it may be condoned.
10. Learned Counsel for the Respondents had opposed the Application
and submitted that merely because it is a Government Department does not
give them any right to adopt a lackadaisical approach in filing the Appeal on
time. The explanations given in the Application and the Affidavit in fact,
show that no due diligence had been exercised by the DDA. Moreover, there
are long gaps of months or two, in between the given dates, which have not
been explained.
11. Reliance is placed on H. Guruswamy and Others vs. A. Krishnaiah
since Deceased by LRs, 2025 SCC OnLine 9 SC 54, wherein it has been
observed that there is absence of judicious conscience and restraint, which a
Court is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties.
The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation
offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause
assigned by the litigant and the 10 opposition of the other side is equally
balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:32:43
purpose of condoning the delay.
12. It is, therefore, submitted that there are no cogent explanation given
in the condonation Application, which is liable to be dismissed.
Submission heard and record perused.
13. There is a delay of 999 days (1029 days as per the Registry) in filing
the present Appeal on 22.12.2022 against the Judgment and Decree dated
29.11.2019. The period of limitation expired on 28.02.2020. The delay being
substantial, the explanation furnished by the Appellant requires careful
scrutiny to determine whether “sufficient cause” within the meaning of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is made out.
14. It is settled that the law of limitation is founded on sound public
policy and cannot be diluted merely because the Appellant is a Government
body. At the same time, the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, is to receive a liberal construction in cases where the
explanation does not reflect mala fides or deliberate inaction, but indicates
procedural and administrative delay.
15. In the present case, the limitation period expired on 28.02.2020 and
thereafter, a Nationwide lockdown due to the pandemic was imposed on
22.03.2020. The Appeal was filed on 22.12.2022. The record reflects that
the copy of the impugned judgment along with the file, was forwarded to the
DDA on 20.08.2020. No doubt that the period between August, 2020 till
December, 2022 is considerable, but the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022, stands excluded due to Covid-19 pandemic.
16. Moreover, the Additional Affidavit filed by the Appellant
Department records the movement of the File and the departments through
which it passed.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:32:43
17. The record reflects that the copy of the impugned judgment along
with the File was forwarded to the DDA on 20.08.2020. Thereafter, owing
to inter-departmental movement and the file having been marked to an
incorrect Department, it was received back in the office of the CLA only on
05.04.2022.
18. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken without undue delay. The
Appeal was ultimately filed on 22.12.2022. What emerges is that although
certain intervals appear between the given dates, the chronology reflects
continuous administrative movement of the file. After the pandemic period,
post February, 2022, the subsequent delay is evidently attributable to inter-
departmental processing, opinion of the Panel lawyer, tracing of an old
record, remittance of court fees, and preparation of proper copies for filing.
Though a considerable delay, but the Appellants have provided sufficient,
cogent reasoning for the delay in filing the present Appeal.
19. Herein, it is pertinent to refer to Apex Court case of Shivamma (Dead)
by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1969 wherein it was held as under:
“261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned
order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before
we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it
appropriate to make it abundantly clear that
administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a
sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want
to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts
that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and
superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient
cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able
to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained
vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to
justice, as is famously said. But courts, and moreThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:32:43
particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate
the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also
equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing
litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.
…”
20. In the present case, the explanation furnished does not disclose any
administrative lethargy. No material has been placed on record by the
Respondent to demonstrate mala fide intent or deliberate inaction to delay
the proceedings. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the
Appellant, cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides.
21. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Application is allowed. Thus,
delay condoned.
RFA 64/2023, CM APPL. 3446/2023
22. E-Trial Court Record be summoned on or before the next date of
hearing.
23. Written Submissions be filed by both the parties within 08 weeks,
failing which the same shall be accepted, subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- to be
deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust.
24. List on 05.10.2026.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2026/N
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:32:43