Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Gabriel Kiro, Son of Marsel Kiro - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 226 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 appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 645-day delay in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of both the delay condonation application and the appeal itself.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order directing them to assess and pay a difference in salary within eight weeks. The appeal was filed after a delay of 645 days, prompting the court to first consider the delay condonation application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and the need for a bona fide explanation for the delay. The court noted that the appellants had not acted with due diligence and that the procedural delays cited were not adequate to justify the inordinate delay.
Issues: Whether the delay of 645 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 a party seeking condonation of delay must demonstrate a sufficient cause. The absence of diligence and bona fides in the explanation for the delay is a critical factor in the court's decision-making process.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application was dismissed, and consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.3675 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to assess the difference of salary and pay the entire amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
2. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 645 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. 4371 of 2024
3. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 645 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A. No.4371 of 2024.
4. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application, that after the representation was filed by the writ petitioner on 29.07.2022 the file was put up before the Joint Secretary on 04.08.2022; thereafter the file was sent to the Nodal Officer, Law Section of the Department on 12.08.2022 preparing grounds for appeal which was drafted and submitted for approval on 13.09.2022; thereafter the file was put up for approval of the Law Department and it was approved on 28.09.2022 for filing appeal; thereafter the original file was handed over to the conducting lawyer on 04.01.2023 and thereafter the memo of appeal was drafted and submitted to the Department which approved it in April, 2023 and the appeal could be filed on 25.04.2023, but in the process thereof, a delay of 645 days has occurred in preferring the instant appeal.
5. 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.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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.
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 it is 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:
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 explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides.
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 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
