Back
IN HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JJ
Rajinder Singh, S/o. Late Sh. Teja Singh – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Aziz S/o. Sh. Shukar Khan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mohd Yousuf Wani, J.
1. Impugned in the instant Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules [hereinafter referred to as “LPA” for short] is the Judgment dated 9th July, 2024, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court while allowing an application for condonation of delay (CM No. 6794/2023) that came to be filed by the contesting respondent (petitioner therein), namely, Abdul Aziz along with the main petition (109/2023) seeking review of the Order dated 18th May, 2017, passed by this Court in OWP No. 878/2010, while allowing the said petition and setting aside the Order dated 18th February, 2010 of the learned J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, [hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for short] impugned therein.
2. A brief resume of the facts of the case relevant for disposal of the instant intra court appeal deserves a needful mention.
One, Sh. Teja Singh, father of the appellants 1 and 2 and the grandfather of appellant no. 3 allegedly started cultivating a big chunk of land approximately measuring 85 Kanals falling under different khasra numbers and situated at village Sahano Tehsil and District Jammu, in the year 1965, which land was belong
The sufficiency of the cause for condoning delay is paramount, and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is justified when no mala fides are present, despite the length of the delay.
The law of limitation must be applied strictly, and delay in filing appeals can only be condoned on sufficient cause, which was not established in this case.
A delay in filing a review application is not condoned without a sufficient and bona fide reason, especially when negligence or inaction is evident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay, emphasizing the absence of negligence or lack of bona fide motive.
The law of limitation is to be strictly enforced, and parties, including the government, must provide sufficient cause for any delay in filing appeals; negligence or lack of bona fides will not justi....
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown, with strict adherence to the law of limitation.
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be strictly justified, and lack of bona fides or negligence can prevent condonation of delay.
The State must provide satisfactory reasons for delay in filing petitions; bureaucratic inefficiency is no excuse. Condonation of delay should not undermine the principles of timely justice.
The court emphasized that procedural delays and lack of bona fides do not justify condoning significant delays in filing appeals, reinforcing the importance of adhering to limitation laws.
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
