The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a reasonable and pragmatic interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, and the importance of protecting the substantial rights of the parties when there is inordinate delay attributable to a party's inaction and negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Chowdhary, J.

1. This intra Court appeal, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred by the Appellant against the final Order/Judgment dated 26th of April, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in an application filed by the Appellant, along with others, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition against the final Order/Judgment dated 29th of April, 2015 passed in SWP No. 302/2010 titled ‘Dr. Nasreena Bashir & Ors. v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.’, whereby the said condonation of delay application stands dismissed.

2. The impugned final Order/Judgment has been assailed by the Appellant, inter alia, on the following grounds:

“I) BECAUSE, the Ld. Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the Appellant’s explanation, although lacking specific dates initially, substantially complied with the requirement to provide reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, particularly in view of filing of supplementary affidavit by the Appellant. The destruction of records due to flash floods and the frequent absence of the counsel from the State are genuine and valid reasons that should be considered, despite not being presented in an ideal format. Therefore, the Impugned Order is unsustainable and illegal and cannot sustain in the eyes of law, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

II) BECAUSE, the Ld. Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay is disproportionate to the circumstances at hand. The delay in filing the accompanying review petition is a procedural matter and should not overshadow the merits of the case. Granting condonation of delay would serve the interests of justice and ensure a fair consideration of the review petition on its merits. Consequently, the impugned Order is patently illegal and is also perverse in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

III) BECAUSE, the Ld. Single Judge erred in giving a strict interpretation of the Appellant’s explanation, which overly focuses on technicalities, disregarding the overarching principle of substantive justice. The Ld. Single Judge ought to have taken a more flexible approach, considering the genuine reasons for the delay and safeguarding the Appellant’s right to have his case heard and considered on its merits. Consequently, the impugned Order is bad in law, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

IV) BECAUSE, the Ld. Single Judge erred in the exercise of its discretion by dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Ld. Single Judge failed to give due consideration to the circumstances surrounding the delay, such as the destruction of records due to flash floods and the counsel’s frequent absence from the State. The dismissal was based on an overly strict interpretation of the requirements and a hyper technical approach, disregarding the overall interests of justice. Resultantly, the impugned order has caused immense prejudice to the rights of the Appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is legally untenable and does not deserve to sustain in the eyes of law, therefore, deserves to be set aside.”

3. Mr Danish Majid Dar, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has vehemently argued that the application, wherein the impugned final Order/Judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge, should have been allowed as plausible reasons had been assigned to show sufficient cause, which was to be liberally constructed in favour of the Appellant. He has further argued that the Review Petition could not be filed in time by the Appellant herein for the reason that there was destruction of his record of the Petition due to flash floods and, secondly, that the Counsel of the Appellant was most of the time out of Station. Accordingly, the learned Counsel was prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned final Order/Judgment be set aside so that the Review Petition is heard and decided on its merits.

4. Mr Shah Aamir, the learned Cou