Right To Appeal Cannot Be Made Conditional Upon Deposit Of Decretal Sum: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an appellate court cannot impose the condition of depositing the decreetal amount as a precondition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The learned 1st Appellate Court had no authority to issue a direction that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed subject to deposition of 50% of the decreetal amount,”

The petitioner approached the appellate court, challenging a money decree passed by the trial court under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the appeal was filed after expiry of the limitation period, so they also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

The appeal was allowed by the appellate court, however, a condition was imposed and they were asked to deposit 50% of the decretal amount. When this condition was not complied with, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the order.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court challenging both orders of the appellate court, contending that the appellate court's order to deposit half of the decreetal amount as a condition for condonation of delay was legally unsustainable.

The Court remarked that the appellate court's orders were per se perverse and not sustainable. When an appeal is time-barred and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, the correct procedure is to impose reasonable costs, not to compel deposit of half the decretal amount.

Further, the Court held that the subsequent dismissal order was a result of the earlier order passed by the Appellate Court which had already been held to be bad by this Court. Consequently, the subsequent order was also not sustainable in the eyes of law and was accordingly set aside.

Thus, the Court condoned the delay by directing the petitioners to deposit ₹15,000 in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund, 2025.

Case Name: Sh. Rajinder Singh Thakur & another v/s Sh. Dhaminder Kunmar Chadha

Case No.: CMPMO No. 42 of 2022

Date of Decision: 09.09.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Proceeded ex parte

Click Here To Read/Download Order