[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Naresh Sharma & Anr vs Prv Industries & Anr on 22 December, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 720/2025, CM APPLs. 81273/2025, 81274/2025,
81275/2025, 81276/2025, 81277/2025 & 81278/2025
NARESH SHARMA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi and Mr.
Sagar Chaturvedi, Advs.
versus
PRV INDUSTRIES & ANR. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 22.12.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against a preliminary decree
dated 9 December 2022 and final decree dated 6 August 2024. The
appeal has come to be filed on or after 17 December 2025 which is the
date of the affidavit accompanying the appeal.
2. As this is a commercial appeal, periods of limitation have to be
strictly followed and there have to be cogent ground for us to condone
delay in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers &
Contractors Pvt. Ltd.1.
3. The explanation for the delay, as contained in CM APPL.
1 (2021) 6 SCC 460
RFA(COMM) 720/2025
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2025
18:29:06
81275/2025 read thus:
"2. That the 1044 days in filing the present appeal against the
preliminary decree dated 09.12.2022 is neither intentional nor
deliberate, but has occurred due to circumstances wholly beyond
the control of the Applicant/Appellant No.1, and therefore deserves
to be condoned in the interest of justice.
3. That soon after the passing of the preliminary decree dated
09.12.2022, the Applicant/Appellant No.1, Naresh Sharma, fell
seriously ill, due to which he was physically and mentally
incapacitated and unable to take timely steps to challenge the said
decree.
4. That the medical condition of the Applicant/Appellant No.1
deteriorated further and he had to undergo brain surgery, followed
by post-operative treatment, during which period he was under
strict medical advice for rest and continuous medical supervision.
5. That due to the said illness, surgery, and prolonged
recovery period, the Applicant/Appellant No.1 was completely
prevented from contacting his counsel, arranging necessary
documents, or giving instructions for filing the appeal within the
prescribed period of limitation.
6. That the Applicant/Appellant No.1 is a lay person with no
legal background and was wholly dependent upon others for
managing his affairs, and owing to his serious medical condition,
there was neither wilful default nor conscious negligence in not
approaching this Hon'ble Court within time.
7. That after partial recovery and upon being medically able to
attend to his affairs, the Applicant/Appellant No.1 intended to
pursue the legal remedy, however, before effective steps could be
taken, circumstances beyond his control intervened.
8. That the Applicant/Appellant No.1 was arrested on
16.10.2025 and has been in Judicial Custody thereafter, and due to
such incarceration, he was deprived of liberty, access to case
records, and effective opportunity to seek timely legal assistance,
which further contributed to the delay.
9. That while the Applicant/Appellant No.1 was in Judicial.
Custody, he was served with execution proceedings arising out of
the preliminary decree, and it was only upon such service in
custody that he first came to know about the existence, contents,
and effect of the preliminary decree dated 09.12.2022.
RFA(COMM) 720/2025
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2025
18:29:06
10. That immediately upon gaining knowledge of the
preliminary decree during Judicial Custody, the
Applicant/Appellant no.1 took steps through available legal
channels to obtain legal advice and to challenge the said decree,
thereby demonstrating bona fide conduct and due diligence.
11. That the period of serious illness, brain surgery, prolonged
recovery, and subsequent Judicial Custody collectively constitute
"sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, justifying condonation of delay."
4. It is clear that there is no explanation worth the name for the
inordinate delay from challenging the preliminary decree dated 9
December 2022. Insofar as the final decree is concerned, for nearly a
year, there is no explanation. The only statement that is to be found in
the application is that on 16 October 2025, the appellant was
incarcerated. There is not a word of explanation for the period from 6
August 2024 to 16 October 2025.
5. In these circumstances, it is clear that no case for condonation
of delay of this appeal has been made out. The application for
condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal and all
other applications filed with the appeal are also dismissed on the
ground of delay without entering into merits.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
DECEMBER 22, 2025/aky
RFA(COMM) 720/2025
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2025
18:29:06
