Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Krishana Bhuiya son of Late Munshi Bhuiyan – Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited – Respondent
L.P.A. No.406 of 2021 With I.A. No. 6814 of 2023
Decided on : 08-08-2023
Delay Condonation - Intra-court Appeal - [Section 5, Limitation Act] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a sufficient cause and bona fide motive. It highlighted the importance of diligence and the duty of the court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the case. The court also referred to various judgments to support its decision to dismiss the delay condonation application.
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed with a delay of 811 days, and an application for condoning the delay was submitted. The appellant cited reasons such as being unaware of the outcome of the writ petition due to working as a laborer and the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.
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 811 days. It referenced previous cases where delay condonation applications were rejected due to lack of sufficient cause.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay condonation application should be granted based on the reasons provided by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a sufficient cause and bona fide motive when considering delay condonation applications. It highlighted the importance of diligence and the duty of the court to weigh the conduct and attitude of the party seeking condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application and the appeal were both dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 15.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6105 of 2011 by which the writ petition has been dismissed.
I.A. No. 6814 of 2023:
2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 811 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 6814 of 2023 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 811 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 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 the appellant-writ petitioner went back to his parental home at Gaya and was working as labourer and he was not in regular contact with the counsel conducting his case, as such, he was not aware of the outcome of the writ petition. Thereafter, COVID-19 outbreak was there and when the conditions of the COVID-19 was relaxed, then the writ petitioner contacting his counsel in the last of 2021 and came to know about the outcome of the writ petition.
It has further been stated in the interlocutory application that after coming to know about the outcome of the writ petition, he approached the counsel and some time was take in preparation of the file and its drafting due to which delay of 811 days has occurred in fling the instant appeal.
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 proposition 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:
In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held at paragraph-6 as under:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause and bona fide motive when seeking condonation of delay, as well as the importance of diligence and the duty ....
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 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 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 must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
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 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 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 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....
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
