IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
LAC & Anr. - Applicants
Versus
Prem Prakash & Ors. - Respondents
CMP(M) No. 1685 of 2025
Decided On : 24-03-2026
| 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 was marked to Sh. Padam Nabh, Junior Engineer, Churag/Tattapani Section vide endorsement No. 441, dated 04.10.2023. In the meanwhile, the area experienced severe flooding due to heavy rainfall. The situation was critical, with residents facing displacement and considerable hardship. The overflowing of rivers/khads caused extensive damage to infrastructure, including roads and bridges, severely affecting mobility and access to essential services. Faced with this situation, all field staff was deployed for road clearance and restoration work. Subsequently, Assistant Engineer was transferred from HPPWD Sub-Division, Churag and the dealing hand also joined another office upon his promotion. In these circumstances, no steps could be taken for processing the matter for appeal. The Office of appellant No. 2 was not made aware of the status of the case until it was listed before the learned Sessions Court Camp at Karsog on 08.04.2025 and at the time of scrutiny, it was found that legal opinion from the competent authority was required. Hence, Executive Engineer, Karsog forwarded the matter to the Legal Cell of the office of Engineer-in-Chief vide letter dated 19.04.2025, which was received on 26.04.2025. Thereafter, the matter was further forwarded to the Government for seeking opinion of Law Department vide letter No. 242-44, dated 26.04.2025. The Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh conveyed the opinion vide letter dated 20.06.2025 to the Office of Engineer-in-Chief, which was received on 24.6.2025, who further conveyed the opinion alongwith relevant case file to the Office of Executive Engineer, Karsog vide letter No. 823-24, dated 24.06.2025, which was received in his office on 28.06.2025. On receipt of the opinion of Government, the Executive Engineer, Karsog prepared and drafted the appeal and submitted the same to the Office of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla vide letter dated 27.06.2025, which was received in his office on 28.06.2025. Some record was sought from field office and on its receipt, the same was vetted in his office on 04.07.2025 and the said office forwarded the same to the office of learned Advocate General vide letter dated 04.7.2025, who vetted the same on 07.07.2025. Thereafter, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Karsog submitted the fair appeal to the Superintending Engineer 1st Circle, HPPWD Mandi vide letter dated 08.07.2025 for signatures, being authorized signatory, who further sent the fair appeal duly signed, to the Office of learned Advocate General vide letter No. PW-SEI-R-24-7-C.C./Karsog/25-5121-23 dated 11.07.2025. In this way, delay of one year, eleven months and four days in filing the present appeal has occurred, which is neither intentional nor willful, but was beyond the control of the applicants, as
Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others
Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.