Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Ajay Gope, s/o. Late Kishun Gope - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.396 Of 2020
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Delay Condonation - Limitation - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963] - The court dismissed the appeal and the delay condonation application due to inordinate delay of 829 days in filing the appeal. The court referred to legal propositions by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the approach of the Court in condoning inordinate delay and the meaning of 'sufficient cause'. The court emphasized that lack of bona fides and gross inaction and negligence are vital factors to be considered while condoning the delay. The court held that the explanation furnished by the appellant was not a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 829 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay citing reasons such as lack of information about the judgment, outbreak of COVID-19, and subsequent relaxation by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation furnished by the appellant was not a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 829 days. The delay condonation application and the appeal were both dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that lack of bona fides and gross inaction and negligence are vital factors to be considered while condoning the delay. The court held that the explanation furnished by the appellant was not a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application and the appeal were both dismissed due to the inordinate delay of 829 days.
ORDER :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :
The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 13th August, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No.1608 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that on the date of death of father of the appellant, he was aged about 10 years, as per the service records of his father, and thus was not even eligible for keeping his name in the live roster.
I.A. No. 7549 of 2022
2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 829 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 7549 of 2022 has been filed for condoning such delay.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 829 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.
5. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application is that he has filed requisition for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order on 24.09.2018 and he has obtained the same on 26.09.2018. Thereafter, the appellant in the month of March, 2020 collected the file from the learned conducting counsel and on being asked for non-information of development of case, he was told to his satisfaction that the learned counsel had made all their endeavours to convey the development of the case but has failed. After collecting the file, he was not compelled to move out of his residence, due to sudden outbreak of Covid-19. However, due to less impact of Covid-19 from September/October-2020 onwards, the appellant moved out from Jarangdih, Bokaro and proceeded to Ranchi in December, 2020 and the instant appeal was filed on 19.12.2020.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal propositions as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.
8. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351.
The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939- 40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that:
“A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law.”
In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considerin
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of bona fides and gross inaction and negligence are vital factors to be considered while condoning the delay. The court emphasized the im....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a bona fide motive and sufficient cause for delay condonation, highlighting that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of showing sufficient cause for condoning delay and the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to ensure substantial justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause and bona fide motive when seeking condonation of delay.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal must be adequately justified, and negligence or lack of bona fides can bar condonation.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
The principle that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a party can demonstrate sufficient cause for any delay, with negligence or lack of bona fides being significant factor....
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.
The Court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning appeal delays must include diligence and bona fides; ignorance of law and financial hardship alone are insufficient grounds for delay beyond t....
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
