Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
State of Jharkhand, through its Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Devendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Kameshawar Singh – Respondent
L.P.A. No.394 of 2023
Decided On : 12-06-2024
DELAY - CONDONATION OF DELAY - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - The court discussed the principles surrounding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a sufficient cause is demonstrated. The court highlighted that procedural delays, lack of diligence, and the absence of bona fides are critical factors in determining whether to condone a delay. The court ultimately found that the reasons provided by the appellants did not constitute sufficient cause, leading to the dismissal of the delay application and the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed against a judgment that quashed a punishment order. The appeal was filed after a delay of 160 days, prompting the appellants to seek condonation of this delay, citing procedural reasons for the tardiness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation for the delay was insufficient. It emphasized the need for a bona fide motive and diligence in filing appeals, and noted that the reasons provided were merely procedural delays without adequate justification.
Issues: Whether the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is to be applied rigorously and that mere procedural delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. The court also highlighted the importance of diligence and bona fides in the context of delay applications.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal as well.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7322 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 28.12.2016 and appellate order dated 24.04.2019, have been quashed and set aside.
I.A.No.11469 of 2023
2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 160 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.11469 of 2023.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 160 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. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after receipt of impugned order, the file was placed before the competent authority who was directed to seek legal opinion and thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Law Department and decision was taken to file an appeal. Thereafter, the file was sent to retainer of Department for preparing grounds of appeal. The file was transferred to the counsel who has drafted the memo of appeal and sent to the Department concerned for approval and after approval it was filed on 26.07.2023, which according to the appellants is not intentional, rather, on account of procedural delay, some extra time has been consumed by the appellants.
5. Learned Sr. SC-II appearing for the State-appellants, therefore, has prayed to condone the delay and has submitted that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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.
9. 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:
10. 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 law of limitation is fundamental and must be strictly adhered to; mere procedural delays or bureaucratic inefficiencies do not justify the condonation of inordinate delays in filing appeals.
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Procedural delays and lack of diligence are insufficie....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory and bona fide explanation for the delay, is fundamental....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides.
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and the burden lies on the party seeking condonation of delay to demonstrate sufficient cause, which must not be based on negligence or lack of bona....
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 ruled that an inordinate delay in filing an appeal requires a sufficient explanation, and negligence or lack of bona fides can lead to dismissal of the application for condonation.
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
