Himachal Pradesh High Court Overturns Appellate Court's Decree Condition for Delay Condonation
High Court rules that imposing deposit of decreetal amount for delay condonation is legally unsustainable, orders alternative relief fund deposition.
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a condition imposed by the Appellate Court requiring petitioners to deposit half of the decreetal amount for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a money decree. The judgment delivered by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, underscores the principle that appellate courts cannot mandate the deposit of decreetal amounts as a pre-condition for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when contesting a money decree under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The case, Rajinder Singh Thakur v. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha, revolved around an appeal filed by the petitioners against a money decree. The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Court, in its order dated March 2, 2020, had allowed the application for condonation subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the decreetal amount. This condition led to the dismissal of the appeal on September 23, 2021, due to non-compliance.
Justice Goel, while hearing the petition, deemed the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court as perverse and not sustainable in law. He emphasized that the petitioners had the right to challenge the decree without depositing the decreetal amount. The court recognized that while consequences would follow if the appeal was filed without depositing the decreetal amount, the Appellate Court lacked the authority to enforce such a pre-condition.
In a corrective measure, the High Court allowed the condonation of delay subject to the petitioners depositing Rs. 15,000 in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund within four weeks. The court directed the petitioners to appear before the Appellate Court on October 15, 2025, for further proceedings on the appeal's merits, contingent upon the deposit in the relief fund.
This judgment reiterates the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and legal principles in judicial proceedings, ensuring that litigants are not burdened with unjust conditions that hinder their right to appeal.
Bottom Line:
Appellate Court cannot impose a condition of depositing half of the decreetal amount for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act while appealing against a money decree under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 96, Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
