Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Md. Noor Hassan, S/o. Late Ahmed Hussain - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 480 of 2023
Decided On : 10-06-2024
DELAY - CONDONATION OF DELAY - Limitation Act, Section 5; Various Supreme Court Judgments - 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 for the 204-day delay were insufficient, leading to the dismissal of both the delay condonation application and the appeal itself.
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed against a Single Judge's order allowing a writ petition concerning post-retiral dues. The appeal was filed after a delay of 204 days, prompting the appellants to seek condonation of this delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation for the delay was inadequate and did not meet the standards required for condonation. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and the need for a bona fide and diligent approach from the appellants.
Issues: Whether the delay of 204 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 strict and that sufficient cause must be shown for any delay. It emphasized that procedural delays and lack of diligence are not sufficient grounds for condonation, and that the burden lies on the party seeking condonation to demonstrate a bona fide reason for the delay.
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 under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1601 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with all consequential benefits.
2. At the outset, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, has submitted that that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed only after the representation has been made by the writ petitioner in pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge with respect to the claim of post retiral dues.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 204 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.
I.A. No. 8781 of 2023
4. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 204 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A. No. 8781 of 2023.
5. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application, that certified copy of the order was received by the appellants-State on 27.01.2023 from this Hon’ble Court; thereafter, the opinion of the Law Department was asked for on 24.02.2023 which was received on 21.03.2023; thereafter, the file was sent to the Retainer of the Department for drafting of grounds of appeal and the same was received to the Department on 23.06.2023; thereafter on 20.07.2023, a letter was sent to the learned Advocate for filing the present Letters Patent Appeal, but it was returned for want of approval from the learned Advocate General on 26.07.2023; thereafter on 28.08.2023 after getting approval from the learned Advocate General, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on 01.09.2023; but in the process thereof, a delay of 204 days has occurred in preferring the instant appeal.
6. The delay, according to the appellants, is not intentional rather on account of procedural delay and in taking final decision, some extra time has been consumed by the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has prayed to condone the delay and has submitted that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.
7. 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 approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.
8. 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 it is the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.
9. 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.
10. 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 :
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 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 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 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 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
