Recently, the Allahabad High Court condoned a delay of 154 days in filing a commercial appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court held that sufficient cause had been shown, taking into account the proprietor’s health issues and subsequent knowledge of the impugned order through newly engaged counsel. Importantly, the Court observed that when identical orders in connected suits are under challenge, one filed within limitation and another beyond time, it would be unjust to reject the delayed appeal without examining the merits.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by M/s Jay Chemical Works against M/s Sai Chemicals before the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar. The Commercial Court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The appellant challenged the order, but the appeal was filed with a delay of 154 days.
The appellant sought condonation of delay, attributing it to the serious illness of its proprietor, who remained under medical treatment and was unable to monitor the proceedings. It was further stated that the earlier counsel did not inform him about the passing of the order. Later, upon engaging a new counsel, the proprietor came to know about the impugned order and immediately filed the appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant argued that the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances, particularly the proprietor’s illness and lack of knowledge of the order. The plea was supported by medical documents. Counsel also highlighted that in another connected matter involving the same parties, a similar order of return of plaint had been passed, and the appeal against that order was filed within limitation. It was submitted that both matters should be heard on merits, and reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ummer v. Pottengal Subida, which emphasized a liberal approach towards “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Counsel opposed the condonation, contending that false pleas had been taken regarding illness and change of counsel. It was pointed out that the proprietor had filed an affidavit in another case before the same court in January 2025, indicating that he was well aware of ongoing proceedings. The respondent relied on Jharkhand Urja Nigam Ltd. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., where the Apex Court refused to condone a prolonged delay, stressing that vague excuses cannot constitute sufficient cause.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court noted that the jurisprudence on delay condonation has evolved. Referring to Ummer (supra) and Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice.
Rejecting the respondent’s objections, the Court observed, “Mere filing of an affidavit in another suit before the same court cannot conclusively establish prior knowledge of the impugned order in a different case. The plea of physical ailments of the proprietor, duly supported by medical evidence, and subsequent discovery of the order upon engaging new counsel, appears cogent and believable".
The Court further emphasized that when identical orders have been passed in two connected matters, one challenged within time and the other beyond time, it would not be appropriate to deny condonation merely on technical grounds.
The decision of the Court:
Holding that the appellant had satisfactorily explained the delay, the High Court allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay of 154 days was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be listed with the connected matter for hearing on merits.
The Court concluded, “The cause shown for delay is found to be sufficient and satisfactory in the facts of the present case. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned". The appeal was directed to be registered and listed on August 13, 2025, along with the connected commercial appeal.
Case Title: M/s Jay Chemical Works Vs. M/s Sai Chemicals
Case No.: Commercial Appeal Defective No. 1 of 2025
Coram: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Justice Kshitij Shailendra
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Govind Singh (Sr. Advocate), Imran Syed, Anil Sahu
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Devansh Misra, Anup Shukla
