Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ANANDA SEN, JJ.
Sulata Toppo - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 213 of 2021 with I.A. No. 2727 of 2023
Decided On : 27-03-2023
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi.
Proper explanation and supporting documents are necessary for condonation of delay in appeals, and certain applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have to be considered liberally.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Appeal - The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 770 days in preferring the appeal, as the appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay and did not submit supporting documents. The court cited the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353, emphasizing that while certain applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have to be considered liberally, in this case, the delay was not properly explained and the appellant was seen as a fence sitter who filed the appeal after learning about the bunching of several cases by the Division Bench of the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 770 days in preferring the appeal, citing reasons related to the withholding of her candidature due to a certificate issued by a specific institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that the appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay and did not submit supporting documents. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed.
Issues: Condonation of delay, sufficiency of reasons for delay, supporting documents for condonation of delay, maintainability of the appeal
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper explanation and supporting documents for condonation of delay, citing the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. No orders as to costs were issued.
Key Points: - The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 770 days in preferring the appeal (!) - The appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay and did not submit supporting documents (!) - The court cited a previous case emphasizing that applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be considered liberally, but this delay was not properly explained (!) - The appellant was viewed as a fence sitter who filed the appeal after learning about the bunching of cases by the Division Bench (!) - The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as a consequence (!) - No orders as to costs were issued (!)
What is the proper procedure for condonation of delay in appeals under the Limitation Act?
What are the requirements for maintaining a Letters Patent Appeal?
What constitutes sufficient reasons for delay in filing an appeal?
ORDER :
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
1. I.A. No. 2727 of 2023 has been filed for condoning the delay of 770 days in preferring this appeal.
2. It appears that the appellant is trying to take advantage of a judgment passed by this Court in a Division Bench which covers this case.
3. We have carefully examined the application for condonation of delay. At paragraph 4, the appellant prays that after the impugned judgment was passed on 05.07.2018 she was fully hopeless despite the fact that she was fully meritorious and qualified in merit but since her candidature was withheld because of the certificate issued by the Deoghar Vidhya Pith for which she cannot be held liable, hence she was in a shock for almost one and half years. However, no supporting document has been annexed with the application for condonation of delay.
4. It is true that in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioner is not required to explain the delay in a pedantic manner. Certain applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have to be considered liberally, but in this case we find that no explanation at all regarding the delay of 770 days in preferring the appeal, rather we consider the appellant to be a fence sitter who has filed this appeal after coming to know about the bunching of several cases by the Division Bench of this Court and which was ultimately allowed on 10.05.2022. In that view of the matter, the delay has not been properly explained and the appellant has failed to show that she was prevented by sufficient reasons from preferring the appeal in time. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay, which is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal being not maintainable is also dismissed.
5. No orders as to costs.
6. Urgent copies as per Rules.
