Anil Kaula S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula R/O … vs 1. Rajeev Kaula S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula … on 21 April, 2026

May 9, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Anil Kaula S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula R/O … vs 1. Rajeev Kaula S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula … on 21 April, 2026

Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna

                          $~27
                          *                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +           RFA 1180/2025, CM APPL. 81830/2025, CM APPL. 81832/2025
                                         Anil Kaula
                                         S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula
                                         R/O W-21, Green Park, New Delhi
                                         (Defendant No.1 In Trial Court)


                                                                                                   .....Appellant
                                                                  Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                                                                             Gaurav Goyal, Mr. Abhishek Paruthi,
                                                                             Mr. Deepank Yadav, Mr. Nishant
                                                                             Goyal & Mr. Vaibhav Sharma,
                                                                             Advocates.
                                                                          versus
                                    1. Rajeev Kaula
                                       S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula
                                       R/O 2066, West Sexton Dr.
                                       Springfield, Mo Usa 65810.
                                       (Plaintiff In Trial Court)

                                    2. Neeraj Tankha
                                       R/O C-241, Indira Nagar,
                                       Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226016.
                                       (Defendant No.3 In Trial Court)

                                    3. Sangeeta Zutshi
                                       R/O 1-A, Shila Kunj Colony
                                       (Near Mpeb Hostel) Rampur,
                                       Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482008.
                                       (Defendant No.4 In Trial Court)

                                    4. Namita Bhan
                                       R/O B-4, Mahalakshi Enclave,
                                       P.O. Ormanjhi, Ranchi,
                                       Jharkhand 835219.




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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
                                          (Defendant No.5 In Trial Court)

                                    5. Dr. Vinay Krishna Tankha
                                       R/O C-241, Indira Nagar, Lucknow,
                                       Uttar Pradesh, 226016.
                                       (Defendant No.6 in Trial Court)
                                                                                                            .....Respondent
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv. Dr.
                                                                                      Chandrashekhar,    Adv.,       Shubhi
                                                                                      Sharma, Adv., Mr. Prahalad Balaji,
                                                                                      Adv. Ms. Jharna Singh, Advocate for
                                                                                      R-1.
                                                                                      Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr Mohit
                                                                                      Dagar,     Ms    Creesha      Shastri,
                                                                                      Advocates for R-2 & 5.
                                                                                      Mr. Jagrup Singh Hazra, Advocate for
                                                                                      R-3 and 4.
                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
                                                      ORDER

% 21.04.2026
CM APPL. 81832/2025 (under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with
Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Appellant / Defendant No.1 for
Condonation of Delay of 321 days in filing the Appeal)

1. An Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant / Defendant
No.1 Anil Kaula for Condonation of Delay of 321 days in filing the
Appeal.

SPONSORED

2. It is stated in the Application that a Suit for Partition of property
No.W-21, Green Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Suit
Property”) forming part of estate of Professor Prithvi Nath Kaula, was filed
between the parties who are brothers and sisters.

3. Professor Prithvi Nath Kaula expired on 30.08.2009. He 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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
survived by Asha Kaula his wife, Rajeev Kaula and Anil Kaula (Appellant /
Defendant) his two sons and Neerja Tankha, Sangeeta Zuthshi, and Namita
Bhan, his three daughters. It was claimed in the Suit that the Suit Property
always remained a residence, only for Anil Kaula / Appellant and his family.
His parents came to visit and stay with him whenever they desired and also
received due respect and the attention.

4. Since the father Professor Prithvi Nath Kaula died intestate,
Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff on 13.01.2014 filed the Suit for Partition of
the Estate including the Suit Property against the Appellant / Defendant
No.1 and Respondents No. 2 to 5. A Preliminary Decree of Partition was
passed on 19.09.2024.

5. Thereafter, there were various proposals discussed for the amicable
settlement of the differences. The Final Decree of Partition was passed on
23.12.2024.

6. The Applicant asserts that he was confident that his Advocate who
had been briefed and whose fee has been paid, would appear in the matter
and defend the Appellant‟s interest. However, he later learnt that after the
passing of Preliminary Decree, his Counsel did not appear in the matter.

7. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff Rajeev Kaula filed an
Execution Petition No.36/2025, for execution of the Final Decree. No
Notice of the Execution was served upon the Appellant.

8. The Appellant appeared in the Execution Petition through his
Counsel, on 18.03.2025. He submitted that as the litigation was between
brothers, he was hopeful that some settlement could be arrived between
them.

9. On the next day i.e., 01.04.2025, Counsel for the Judgment Debtor

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
stated that Judgement Debtor No.1 was willing to settle the matter.
Astonishingly, Counsel for the Decree Holders submitted that he had strict
instructions to not go for mediation. This statement suggests that it was
made only to put pressure on the Appellant.

10. The Appellant is a heart patient, suffering from congestive cardiac
failure Class IV, severe LV dysfunction, triple vessel disorder, etc. and
various other ailments. His condition was serious and he had to remain in
the Hospital for about 1.5 months, wherein his heart valves and 3 vessels,
were replaced.

11. On 19.8.2025, the following Order was made:

“Counsel for DH submits that parties are talking about
settling the dispute through mutual understanding and
need some time to explore the possibility of mutually
agreeable settlement. Counsel for JD No.1 as well as
counsel for JD No.3 and 4 concedes to the same. List for
further proceedings on 15.09.2025.”

12. The Counsel for the Appellant sent a proposed Sale Deed to the
Appellant on his WhatsApp, which was received from the Plaintiff‟s
Counsel on 09.10.2025. The matter was discussed and certain suggestions
were made.

13. On 26.10.2025, the Counsel for the Plaintiff sent a proposed revised
Sale Deed to the Appellant by WhatsApp. On 24.11.2025 the Counsel for
the Appellant sent the WhatsApp message to the Appellant stating that there
was a meeting fixed at 04:30 P.M on 26.11.2025, at Indian Law Office and
to check and revert.

14. The parties met on 26.11.2025 in the office of the counsel for the

This is a digitally signed order.

15. In the meantime, it came to the notice of the Appellant that the other
parties are trying to sell the Suit Property, including his share, to the third
party. The Appellant, therefore, sent a WhatsApp message to his Counsel
with a request not to engage in any dealings in relation to the Suit Property
on his behalf and made a request that the matter be kept in abeyance.

16. This message was followed by a response from his Counsel who
stated that the matter is kept in abeyance, as discussed. He did not sign any
document on behalf of the Appellant or receive any draft or cash, on his
behalf. Thereafter, the matter was kept in abeyance for further discussions.

17. The Appellant had a feeling that his interest was not duly taken care
of by his Counsel. As such, he engaged a new Counsel and informed the
previous Counsel with a request to him not to appear on his behalf
thereafter.

18. Previous Counsel of the Appellant at no time, advised him to file an
Appeal against the Decree passed in the Suit. The Appellant has been
continuously engaged in the settlement talks at the initiative of the Plaintiff.
He always believed that the family dispute can be resolved, though it has not
resolved till date. He has a good case on merits and is likely to succeed in
the Appeal.

19. Hence, a prayer was made that the delay of 321 days in filing the
Appeal against the Final Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2024 and
Preliminary Decree dated 19.09.2024 in CS DJ 8103/2016, be condoned.

20. The Appellant has placed reliance on Geo Miller vs. Chairman 2020 4
SCC 643; Hari Shankar Singhania vs. Gaur Hari Singhania (2006) 4 SCC

This is a digitally signed order.

21. The Respondents No.2 and 5 in their Reply to this Application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”), has made the preliminary submissions that the Application is wholly
misconceived, vexatious and abuse of process of law. The Appellant has
approached the Court without any sufficient and bona fide cause, for
condonation of inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.

22. It is submitted that the Plaintiff / Respondent No.1 and the other
answering Respondents, had filed the Suit claiming that their father Late
Shri Prithvi Nath Kaula had died intestate and all his legal heirs were
entitled to equal share. Smt. Asha Kaula the mother died and in terms of her
Will dated 19.03.2012 all the surviving legal heirs were entitled to equal
share.

23. On the contrary the Appellant / Defendant No.1 had claimed himself
to be the sole owner of the Suit Property on the basis of alleged Will dated
01.07.2004 of Late Prithvi Nath Kaula. The learned Trial Court after duly
appreciating the evidence in a well-reasoned and detailed reasoned
Judgment, held that the Appellant had failed to prove the Will of his father
on account of numerous suspicious circumstances while the Will of Late
Smt. Asha Kaula bequeathing her share to all the legal heirs, was held
proved. The Suit Property was decreed to be partitioned between the parties
on the basis of intestate succession and property thus, got apportioned, in
terms of the Will dated 19.03.2012 of Smt. Asha Kaula. The Appellant was
granted a share in the Suit Property in accordance with the mode of
devolution determined by the learned Trial Court.

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04

24. Although, the present Appeal is styled as an Appeal against the Final
Decree, in substance and effect, the Appellant is assailing the Preliminary
Decree dated 19.09.2024, and not the Final Decree dated 23.12.2024.
Therefore, the Limitation period for filing the Appeal started after the
passing of Preliminary Decree dated 19.09.2024 and the Appeal could have
been filed within a limitation period of 90 days, which ended on 19.12.2024.

25. The present Appeal has been instituted on 20.12.2025 and it also
challenges the Final Decree, which is merely to circumvent the statutory bar
of limitation which ought to be counted from the date of passing of
Preliminary Decree. The Appellant has projected a delay of 321 days,
whereas the actual delay is 365 days i.e., from 20.12.2024 to 20.12.2025.

26. The purported settlement talks, even if taken at face value, were only
for limited duration and do not account for prolonged and unexplained
inaction on the part of the Appellant. The attempt to shift the responsibility
on the Counsel, is wholly misconceived and does not dispense with the
Appellant‟s obligation to act with due care and diligence in pursuing the
Appeal within statutory time period.

27. The Appellant on the other hand, has sought to mislead this Court by
asserting that the Counsel remained absent after the passing of Preliminary
Decree which is patently incorrect. Such conduct reflects a lack of bona fide
on the part of the Appellant.

28. The medical grounds pleaded by the Appellant pertains to only a brief
period and pertains to the period subsequent to expiry of statutory period of
limitation.

29. It is claimed that bare perusal of the Application would reveal that the
explanation provided is vague and wholly insufficient, with a substantial

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
period of delay remaining entirely unexplained. It is a settled law that the
Appellant preferring the Appeal beyond limitation, has to satisfy the Court
that he act diligently and with reasons which prevented him from preferring
the Appeal within the period of limitation. The Appellant has miserably
failed to explain the period of delay.

30. The Respondents have further submitted that the explanations offered
by the Appellant for delay, are vague and implausible and thus, do not
constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The explanations
advanced by the Appellant of alleged settlement discussions, attribution of
delay to his counsel, and the medical reasons, failed to disclose any
sufficient or bona fide cause for delay in preferring the Appeal.

31. On merits, all the averments made in the Application are denied. It is
claimed that the Appellant was well aware of the pendency of proceedings
after filing of Preliminary Decree on 19.09.2024. The learned Trial Court
had issued a Court Notice to the Appellant to appear in person on
09.10.2024 for the next Court hearing, but he failed to appear in the Court.

32. A Local Commissioner was appointed vide Order dated 26.10.2024
who conducted an inspection of the Suit Property and submitted her Report
before the Court. The Order dated 18.11.2024 would show that Counsel for
the Appellant had appeared at 02:47 PM before the learned Trial Court and
filed the vakalatnama. The subsequent appearance of the Counsel and the
filing of the vakalatnama, belies the contention of the Appellant that his
Counsel had abandoned the proceedings, after passing of the Preliminary
Decree. Nevertheless, the entire averments are wholly irrelevant and have
no bearing on the issue of condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

33. It is further submitted that the new Counsel who appeared before 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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
Executing Court on 09.12.2025, sought time on account of being newly
engaged. This was only a dilatory tactic, intended to delay the Execution
Proceedings. The conduct of the Appellant was brought to the notice of the
Court on 01.08.2025 wherein it was submitted by the Respondent No.1 that
except the Appellant, all the parties were agreeable to the sale consideration
offered by the potential buyer.

34. The Executing Court vide Order dated 09.12.2025 gave last and final
opportunity to the Appellant to give his willingness to enter into the
settlement, failing which the Execution Proceedings were to be carried
further in accordance with law. Instead of conveying his willingness, the
Appellant has filed the present Appeal.

35. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrates that the Appellant has
consistently being delaying the Execution Proceedings, and had no sincere
intention to settle the matter effectively and actually. He has just used the
settlement talks to prolong the Execution Proceedings, since he is enjoying
the Suit Property being in possession thereof. The settlement talks between
the parties cannot be termed as a sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal
within the prescribed time, for the sole reason that the intention of the
Appellant during such period of settlement talks, was not actually to settle
the matter, but to enjoy the fruits of the Suit Property. It is, therefore,
submitted that there exists no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and
the Application be dismissed.

36. The Respondent has placed reliance on New Delhi Television Ltd. vs.
M.J. Akbar and Ors., MANU/DE/1937/2018, Civil Rev. Petition No.1045
and 1241/2018 decided on 20.11.2018 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Ramkumar Coudhary MANU/SC/1290/2024.

This is a digitally signed order.

37. The law of Limitation was founded on public policy that there should
be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy, rather than the right
itself. If the right or the remedy has not been exercised or availed for a long
time, it must come to an end or cease to exist, after a fixed period of time.

38. The Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, had observed that the expression
„sufficient cause‟ should be given and liberal interpretation to ensure that the
substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of
bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned. Whether or not
sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of the
particular case and no straight jacket formula is possible. It was observed
that the legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means „the law is hard but is
the law” stands attracted in a situation where the Court has no power to
ignore the provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its
operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to
a particular party, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it by giving full
effect to the same.

39. The Supreme Court, in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M.
Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, which was referred to in the case of
Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 4 SCC
363 emphasized that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice-
oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the
substantial law of limitation, especially, in cases where the Court concludes
that there is no justification for the delay. All discretionary powers,

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
especially Judicial powers, have to be exercised in a systematic manner,
informed by reasons, within reasonable bounds, known to the law. Whims
or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis
of exercising discretionary powers.

40. The principles for condonation of delay are well settled through
various judgements that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular
party, but it has to be applied with all its rigours, when the statue so
prescribes. When condonation of delay is sought, the Applicant has to
explain the adequate and enough reasons which prevented him to approach
the Court within limitation. If the party is found to be negligent or lacking
bona fide in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not
acted diligently or remained inactive for long leading to an inordinate delay,
there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay, merely by imposing
any condition.

41. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the present Application for
condonation of Delay may be considered, to ascertain if it discloses any
bona fide reason for delay.

I. Disclosure of Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay:

42. It is a fact that a Preliminary Decree of Partition was passed on
19.09.2024, wherein it was held that all the legal heirs/ parties to the Suit,
were entitled to equal 1/5th share. Thereafter, the Appellant did not appear
and in fact the Court Notice was issued to him to appear in the Court. He
had then put an appearance through his counsel and Final Decree of
Partition was passed on 23.12.2024.

43. Pertinently, the Appellant was well aware of both the Preliminary
Decree as well as the Final Decree and had participated throughout in 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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
court proceedings. It is his own assertion that the Execution Petition was
filed and he had put an appearance therein, in March, 2025.

44. Thereafter, according to the Respondent No.1, unilateral talks were
started by him for a settlement. It was explained by the Counsel for
Respondent No.1 that in fact, the auction was directed to be held and the
parties agreed to bring in their own prospective buyers. The prospective
buyer was identified by Respondents No.2 and 5, but the Appellant had
rejected the figure quoted by the prospective buyer. He has been dilly-
dallying consistently on the sale price and has not been forthcoming to agree
to any particular proposal.

45. The Appellant throughout either personally or through Counsel, had
been negotiating for a settlement for a period of one year, before filing the
present Appeal. His assertion that he was not been represented fairly by his
previous counsel is clearly a frivolous ground, which is not borne out from
the record. He was being sufficiently represented through the Counsel and
was all throughout a party to the settlement talks, that took place between
the parties.

46. Further, his own participation in the settlement proceedings, clearly
reflected that he had not grievance against the Preliminary Decree or the
Final Decree, and he himself had been participating to get the Final Decree
executed amicably, by selling the Suit Property to a prospective buyer.
Despite the prospective buyers being brought by the Respondents, it is he
who conveniently did not agree to the proposed sale amount, which is quite
understandable from the fact that he himself is in possession of the Suit
Property and exclusively enjoying the benefit, despite an adjudication that
other legal heirs are entitled to an equal share in the Suit Property.

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04

47. It has been rightly contended by the Respondents that the entire
endeavour for one year of proposed negotiations for settlement, is nothing
but an attempt to buy the time and delay the Execution Proceedings. Once
the Appellant himself was participating in the negotiation talks and making
an endeavour for settlement, it is quite evident that he had no grievance
against the Preliminary Decree or the Final Decree.

48. In this context it may also be noted that when the Executing Court
vide Order dated 09.12.2025, gave one last and final opportunity to the
Appellant to determine his willingness to enter into the settlement, failing
which the Execution Proceedings would be carried further in accordance
with law, the Appellant has chosen to file his Appeal along with the
Condonation Application. The conduct of the Appellant who had
throughout been participating in the Execution Proceedings, clearly reflect
that there exists no sufficient cause for him to file an Appeal after 321/365
days.

II. Medical Grounds for Condonation of Delay:

49. The second ground which had been taken by the Appellant was that
he was medically unfit and was suffering from multiple complications.
Even if he was not medically fit, but throughout he was being represented by
his Counsel on his instruction and there is nothing on record to show that
there was any impediment in pursuing the litigation. Even if those months of
illness are excluded, even then during the prior and subsequent to his period
of illness, he had been actively involved in the Execution Proceedings.

III. Misdemeanour of the Counsel:

50. The third ground for explaining the delay was that he got an
impression that his counsel was not representing his interest fairly and thus,

This is a digitally signed order.

51. The details as given in the Application, amply disclose that his
counsel was throughout in contact with him, conveying him all the details of
proceedings as well as the proposals and Appellant was all throughout being
informed about all the proposals, in which he was actively participated.

52. In regard to the alleged negligence or inaction of the Counsel, it may
be stated that there is a growing tendency on the part of the litigant to throw
the entire blame on the head of the Advocate who was appearing for the
Petitioners in the Trial Court, which in itself cannot be a ground to condone
long and inordinate delay, as was held in the case of Rajneesh Kumar and
Anr. vs. Ved Prakash, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3380. It was further observed
that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and equally
vigilant about the Judicial proceedings pending in the Court initiated at his
instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire
blame on the head of the Advocate and thereby disown him at any time and
seek the relief.

53. The observation made in Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. (supra) were
followed in Braj Mohan Goel and Anr. Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 1043.

54. In the case of Salil Dutta vs. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2
SCC 185, in the context of the negligence of the Advocate, it was held that
Advocate is the agent of the parties. His acts and statements made within the
limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal
i.e., the party who had engaged him. It is true that in certain situations, in
the interest of Justice, the Court may set aside the ex-parte Decree
notwithstanding the negligence or misdemeanour of the Advocate, where it

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
finds that the client was an innocent litigant, but there is no such absolute
rule that the party can disown its Advocate, at any time and seek relief.

55. The Appellant herein, is not an ignorant illiterate litigant, but is well
educated and understands not only the law, but also his rights and interest.

56. In Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka House Board and Others,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, it was observed that the expression “sufficient
cause” in itself is not a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and
stale claims. The expression is to be construed with Justice oriented
flexibility, so as not to punish innocent litigants for the circumstances
beyond their control.

57. However, this is a classic case where despite diligently participating
throughout the trial and pursuing the execution petition, now feeling
cornered that he may not be successful in dragging the Execution further to
protect his exclusive possession, in terms of the order of the Court, has now
chosen to conveniently put the blame on the advocate, when in fact, the
record shows due diligence on the part of the advocate.

IV. Delay in Filing the Condonation Application:

58. The Appellant has claimed that there was a delay of 321 days, while
the Respondent stated that the delay was in fact, of 365 days.

59. It is well settled that it is not the duration of delay, but the sufficiency
of the explanation of delay, which is more significant. In some cases, even
one day delay may not be condonable, while in other case, even delay of
years may be condoned, if the reasons are found sufficient.

60. This aspect of delay was explained in the case of Union of India and
Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through his LRs, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 489, the Supreme Court held that the length of delay is a relevant

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04
factor which the Court must take into consideration, while considering
whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the
approach of the Appellant it appears that they wanted to fix their own period
of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a
period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the
matter considered on merits, because of his own inaction for long, it cannot
be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as
against technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation
of delay, the Court must not start with the merits of the main matter. 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 opposition of the other side is equally balanced, that
the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of
condoning the delay.

61. It is quite evident from the entire chronology of the events, as detailed
above, that there is no explanation whatsoever, for the delay in filing the
appeal. In fact, mala fide is writ large on the face of the Application,
meriting outright rejection.

Conclusion:

62. In the light of the aforesaid it is evident that there is no sufficient
cause for condonation of delay. The explanations given clearly reflect that
there was a deliberate non-filing of the Appeal and it was only to gain time;
when the Appellant felt cornered by the Order of the Execution Court dated
19.09.2024 and 23.12.2024, the present Appeal has been filed to again delay
the Execution proceedings.

63. There is no merit in the Application, which is hereby dismissed.

This is a digitally signed order.

64. In view of the observations made in the CM APPL. 81832/2025, the
present Regular First Appeal also consequently stands dismissed. The
pending Application(s) are disposed of, accordingly.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
APRIL 21, 2026
va

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 08/05/2026 at 21:00:04

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Anil Kaula S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula R/O … vs 1. Rajeev Kaula S/O Late Sh. P. N. Kaula … on 21 April, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders