Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Shivalik Bimetal Controls Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
“It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by issuing a writ of certiorari and the impugned Order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Revision Petition No. 505/2024 filed under section 118 (3-C) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla, H.P. whereby the order dated 20.05.2024 in a miscellaneous application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been affirmed, may kindly be to set-aside and the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act by the present respondent may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that against an order passed by District Collector, Solan, in Case No. 17/13 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shivalik Bimetal Controls Limited, the State preferred an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. The Appeal was preferred unde
The court emphasized that excessive delays in filing appeals cannot be condoned without valid reasons and that the law of limitation applies equally to government entities.
The main legal point established is the requirement of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the equal application of the law to all parties, including the government, and the need for promptitu....
No meritorious claim should be defeated on mere cause of delay especially in situation where delay was sufficiently explained.
Condonation of delay should not be routine and should only be granted when there is a sufficient cause, as emphasized by the court in this judgment.
State cannot condone inordinate appeal delays via bureaucratic excuses; unexplained periods and administrative lethargy fail sufficient cause test, binding government to limitation laws equally.
Court reiterated the need for sufficient cause in condoning delay, emphasizing that inordinate delays without justifiable reasons will not be entertained.
Period of limitation – Condonation of delay – No event or circumstance arising after expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause – Expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpret....
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
