Misplaced File No Excuse for 3336 Days’ Delay: P&H High Court Refuses to Condon Extraordinary Lapse, Dismisses RSA
Case Name: Ram Kumar v. Haryana State and others
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026
Citation: RSA-5062-2015
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a delay of 3336 days in filing a Regular Second Appeal cannot be condoned on vague and general grounds such as “misplacement of file.” The Court reiterated that condonation of delay is an exception and not a matter of right, and that the applicant must furnish a cogent, satisfactory and bona fide explanation accounting for the entire period of delay. Mere procedural excuses, unsupported by specific particulars, do not constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary: The appellant filed the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgments and decrees dated 22.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and dated 13.04.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul. The appeal was filed after an extraordinary delay of 3336 days. An application under Section 151 CPC was moved seeking condonation of delay.
The sole explanation offered for the delay was that the file had been misplaced and could not be traced earlier. It was contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but purely procedural in nature.
The High Court examined the settled jurisprudence on condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court reiterated that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and aims to ensure finality in litigation. It is not a mere technicality but has substantive value, and courts cannot condone delay as a matter of generosity or benevolence.
Extensive reliance was placed upon recent Supreme Court pronouncements, including Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran (2025 INSC 672), Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 INSC 1104), and State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School (2026 INSC 148). The Court emphasised that condonation of delay is discretionary, and the applicant must demonstrate a bona fide and legally sufficient explanation rather than a mere excuse.
The Court noted the evolving judicial approach which no longer accords preferential indulgence even to the State in matters of delay. It underscored the distinction between a genuine “explanation” and a perfunctory “excuse,” observing that stereotyped or vague pleas—such as bureaucratic delay or misplacement of file—cannot automatically constitute sufficient cause.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the appellant had failed to explain the delay in a cogent and satisfactory manner. No particulars were furnished to account for the entire period of 3336 days. The explanation was vague, general and devoid of material particulars. Even granting every possible latitude, the reasons assigned did not meet the statutory threshold of “sufficient cause.”
The Court observed that bald assertions and general administrative explanations fall far short when confronted with an extraordinary lapse of time. The appellant could not circumvent binding precedents by merely attributing the delay to misplacement of file without demonstrating diligence or bona fide effort.
Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation.