Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA
LAC – Appellant
Versus
Prem Prakash – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay attributed to administrative delays, flooding, and staff transfers. (Para 1) |
| 2. inadequate, non-day-wise explanation for inordinate delay. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 3. limitation law applied strictly; sufficient cause required, no govt latitude. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. condonation denied for lack of sufficient cause; appeal dismissed. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
This order shall dispose of an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of one year, eleven months and four days in filing the present appeal. As per the applicants, Reference Petition was decided by the Reference Court on 11.08.2023 and copy whereof, was applied by the District Attorney on the same day, which was attested on 26.08.2023 and delivered on 28.08.2023. The District Attorney, Shimla forwarded the certified copy of the award alongwith the case file to Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Karsog vide letter dated 05.09.2023, which was received at the Office of Executive Engineer, Karsog on 14.09.2023, who sent the case file to Assistant Engineer, HPPWD, Sub-Division Churag, vide letter No. 5299, dated 15.09.2023, which was received on 30.09.2023.Thereafter, the file
Inordinate delay of nearly two years not condoned due to lack of day-to-day explanation; natural disasters and administrative delays insufficient without proving diligence and bona fides, even for go....
Inordinate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause explaining each day's delay, substantiated by evidence; vague, unsubstantiated plea of family illness fails against rigorous limitation la....
The Court must balance the need for substantial justice against the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines, requiring satisfactory explanations for delays.
Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires substantial justification, and the State is treated no differently than private litigants in these matters.
The court held that the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially when the delay is influenced....
The law of limitation applies equally to the State and private parties, with bureaucratic inefficiency not sufficient for condoning delay.
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
