[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Harsha Associates Pvt. Ltd vs Mahesh Chand Gupta on 19 March, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 24/2025 and CM APPLs. 4367-68/2025 and
4419/2025
HARSHA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. B.S. Bagga, Mr. Sarthak
Mogha, Ms. Radhika Vashisht, Advocates
versus
MAHESH CHAND GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Bhoop Singh and Mr.
Naveen Rai, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 19.03.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 26 August 2023,
passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), Shahdara,
whereby the suit of the appellant has been returned under Order VII
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. This being a commercial appeal, we are bound by the law laid
down by the Supreme court in Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd
v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited1 and Government of
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 910
Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contracts Pvt Ltd.2,
which require the Court to be strict while applying principles of
limitation and considering applications for condonation of delay in
commercial matters. The delay in this case is inordinate, of as many as
410 days3.
3. The ordinary period of limitation available for filing the appeal
expired in or around 25 October 2023. Even if 30 days' condonable
period were taken into account, it would expire towards the end of
November 2023. The explanation provided in the application is that
the counsel appearing for the appellant did not inform the appellant
about the dismissal of his suit on 26 August 2023, the appellant was
undergoing heart treatment in the hospital for the period November
2023 to May 2024, the appellant, having been informed that a Regular
First Appeal would lie against the impugned order, was arranging
court fees for the appeal, and was only advised in October 2024 that
he was required to file a First Appeal against Order.
4. The Supreme Court has in Rajneesh Kumar v Ved Prakash4
held that it is not open to a litigant to throw the blame on counsel
while seeking to explain delay in approaching the Court.
5. That apart, the admission of the appellant in the hospital was
itself after the normal period of limitation had expired in November
2023. The limited period of treatment of the appellant, even as per the
medical records, ended in May 2024.
2 (2021) 6 SCC 460
3 Though the application for condonation of delay seeks condonation of 410 days' delay, in actuality its 440
days.
4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3380
6. There is no explanation worth the name, for the delay between
May 2024 and January 2025 when the appeal came to be filed.
7. The submission that the appellant was erroneously advised that
he had to file an RFA, and was arranging funds for filing the RFA, is
not substantiated by a single document on record. No communication
from the earlier counsel to the appellant stating that an RFA would lie
is forthcoming. Equally, the stand that a new counsel who was
engaged by the appellant informed him in October 2024 that an FAO
would lie, is also unsupported by any documentary material. Prima
facie, these are mere afterthoughts.
8. Keeping in mind the law relating to condonation of delay in
commercial matters, we regret that we are in no position to condone
delay of as much as 410 days in preferring the present appeal.
9. Solely on the ground of delay and without entering into merits
of the dispute, the appeal, as well as all applications filed therewith,
are dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
MARCH 19, 2026/yg
