Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh And Others vs M/S B. K. Handicrafts on 14 October, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Regular
S. No. 2
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(5765/2025) IN RFA 73/2025
CM(5766/2025) CM(5767/2025)
Caveat 1153/2025
Ghulam Ahmad Sheikh and others
... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Advocate
V/s
M/S B. K. Handicrafts
... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Shah Murtaza, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
14-10-2025
1. In the instant application, a delay of 120 days is being sought for
preferring the accompanying appeal against judgment and decree dated
25.1.2025.
2. The contents of the application being relevant herein are extracted and
reproduced hereunder:
1. That the appellants are filing the accompanying appeal against
the Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2024 passed by the
Learned Trial Court in B.K. Handicrafts v. Abdul Gani Sheikh
& Ors., whereby the suit of the respondent was decreed for an
amount of Rs. 28,81,000/- along with simple interest @6% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and costs.
Certified copy of the said judgment and decree is annexed with
the appeal.
2. That there has occurred a delay in filing the accompanying
appeal from the date of passing of the impugned judgment and
decree. The delay has neither been deliberate nor intentional
but is attributable to bona fide reasons beyond the control of
the appellants.
3. That thereafter, the appellants were constrained to arrange the
requisite documents and annexures, including copies of
pleadings, applications, and orders passed by the Trial Court,
which caused further unavoidable delay.
4. That the delay has further occasioned due to financial
constraints faced by the appellants after the passing of the
decree, as the appellants are individuals engaged in handicraft
work with limited means and had to arrange funds for court fee
and preparation of the appeal.
5. That the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but purely
on account of the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances.
6. That unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the
appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury, whereas no
prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the delay is
condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.
7. That the appellants have a strong and meritorious case, as the
impugned decree is ex facie unsustainable in law, the suit
being barred by limitation, and the claim not constituting a
legally enforceable debt under Order XXXVII CPC.
8. That the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor
intentional but beyond the control of the appellants herein and
occasioned due to afore stated facts.
9. That this application is supported by an affidavit duly sworn in.
3. Objections to the application have been filed by the non-applicant
wherein the application is being resisted inter alia on the premise that
the applicants have failed to show any sufficient, reasonable, rational or
justifiable cause for seeking condonation of delay.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It is established principle that the law of limitation has to be applied with
all its rigour as prescribed under the statute, and although section 5 of
the Limitation Act provides extension of limitation in certain cases,
however, the applicant seeking such extension is required to satisfy the
court that there has been sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or
an application within the prescribed period.
5. It is, however, also settled principle of law that ordinarily a litigant does
not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusing to condone
delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of justice being defeated and as against this when
delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be
decided on merits after hearing the parties.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid principle of law consistently laid down by
the Apex court in a series of judgments including in case titled as
Collector v. Katiji reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107 inasmuch as the facts
of the case in hand as also the contents of the application including the
objections filed thereto, this court is of the considered opinion that the
application deserves to be allowed, however, subject to the costs of an
amount of Rs.5,000/- to be payable by the applicants herein to the
respondent herein.
7. The application is accordingly allowed and delay is condoned as above.
8. Disposed of.
CM(5766/2025) CM(5767/2025)
Notice.
Notice waived by Mr. Shah Murtaza, Advocate on behalf of
respondents.
Caveat discharged.
List on 18.11.2025.
Meanwhile, subject to depositing of 50% of the decretal amount within
two months' time either by way of demand draft or bank guarantee by the
appellants herein, the execution of the impugned judgment shall stay till next
date.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
Srinagar
14-10-2025
N Ahmad
