1. Review petitions filed with delay — Application for condonation of delay. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1243
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE (CBI)/s. P. E.
Versus
P. V. NARASIMHA RAO
Decided On December 16, 1998
Courts may reject applications seeking condonation of delay if the explanation for the delay is vague and unsatisfactory.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Review Petitions - The court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in filing review petitions due to vague and unsatisfactory explanation, leading to the dismissal of the review petitions as barred by time.
Fact of the Case:
The review petitions were filed with an inordinate delay of 179 days. The application seeking condonation of delay was vague and contained no reasonable explanation.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the review petitions as barred by time.
Issues: Inordinate delay in filing review petitions, sufficiency of explanation for delay
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the explanation for the inordinate delay in filing review petitions to be vague and unsatisfactory, leading to the rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The review petitions were dismissed as barred by time due to the rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
limitation
- condonation of delay (Para 1)
-
limitation
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. Condonation of delay sought on the ground of paucity of staff. (Para 1 )
3. Application for condonation of delay is vague and indefinite; paucity of staff is not a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay. (Para 1 )
4. Vague explanations or paucity of staff are insufficient grounds for condoning inordinate delays in filing review petitions. (Para 1 )
5. Application for condonation of delay rejected and review petitions dismissed as time-barred. (Para 1 )
6. Does paucity of staff constitute a reasonable explanation for condoning an inordinate delay in filing review petitions?
No, the court held that paucity of staff is not a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for seeking condonation of an inordinate delay. (Para 1 )
7. What is the effect of rejecting an application for condonation of delay on the associated review petitions?
If the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected, the review petitions stand dismissed as barred by time. (Para 1 )
Judgment
A. S. ANAND, JJ.
( 1 ) THERE is an inordinate delay of 179 days in filing these review petitions. The application seeking condo-nation of delay is vague, indefinite and contains no reasonable or satisfactory explanation. That the delay has occurred because of "paucity of staff, is hardly an explanation for seeking condo-nation of such an inordinate delay. The application seeking condo-nation of delay is; therefore, rejected. Consequently, the review petitions shall stand dismissed, as barred by time.
