IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Girja Prasad Singh, son of Late Rameshwar Prasad – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 487 of 2023 With I.A. No. 1523 of 2024
Decided on : 20-06-2024
[LIMITATION] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY] - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act] - [The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods, interpreting 'sufficient cause' as requiring a bona fide and diligent effort by the party seeking condonation. The court referenced several precedents establishing that mere bureaucratic delays or procedural red tape do not constitute sufficient cause, leading to the dismissal of the delay condonation application and the appeal itself.]
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed against a judgment allowing a writ petition, but it was submitted 904 days late. The appellant sought to condone this delay, citing bureaucratic processes and the need for multiple departmental approvals as reasons for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation provided for the delay was insufficient, emphasizing that the movement of files between departments does not justify the inordinate delay. The court highlighted the need for diligence and bona fides in seeking condonation of delay.
Issues: Whether the delay of 904 days in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is strict and that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delays. It emphasized that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause, and the party must demonstrate diligence and bona fides in their actions.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and any pending interlocutory applications.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7014 of 2012 by which the writ petition has been allowed.
2. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal is barred by limitation since it has been filed after the delay of 904 days.
Submission has also been made that the explanation furnished said to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay may be considered, as such, the delay condonation application being I.A. No. 1523 of 2024 is first to be dealt with before entering into the merit of the issue.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed no rebuttal reply but orally it has been submitted that the appeal since has been filed after much delay of 904 days and if the explanation furnished in the delay condonation application will be taken into consideration, the same is not sufficient cause to condone the said delay.
4. It has also been submitted that the State appellant has got no case on merit since the issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 735 of 2019 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 4104 of 2022.
5. Learned counsel for the State-appellant is fair enough not to dispute the deciding of the issue in L.P.A. No. 735 of 2019.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. Although the argument has been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent by referring the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 735 of 2019 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 4104 of 2022 but the question herein is that this Court can only go into the merit if the delay in filing the instant appeal will be condoned by coming to the conclusive finding based upon the explanation furnished in the delay condonation application said to be sufficient cause.
7. It also requires to refer herein that the appeal is to be filed within statutory period and if not filed, a right is to be accrued in favour of the other side and for that, the requirement as per the law is that the issue on merit is to be considered first as also if sufficient cause will be available to condone the delay then only the limitation can be condoned, as such, the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1523 of 2024 is required to be considered first.
I.A. No. 1523 of 2024:
8. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 08.09.2023, there is delay of 904 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 1523 of 2024 has been filed for condoning such delay.
9. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 904 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.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant 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.
11. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application is that after the order having been passed in the writ petition on 26.02.2019, the matter was sent to the Finance Department on 27.09.2019 for their opinion which was duly replied to take appropriate action but on 30.11.2019, it was decided by the State-appellant to send the file along with Finance Department’s opinion to the Law Department and also to the Advocate General for his opinion.
Thereafter, awaiting the opinion, the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department sent the file for compliance for taking approval from the Cabinet on 17.01.2023 which was placed on 09.02.20
Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd.
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225].
Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993]
Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
Lala Matadin Vrs. A. Narayanan
Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100]
Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336]
Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 : AIR 1970 SC 1953]
Maniben Devraj Shah Vrs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai
Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150]
P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala
Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510]
Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448]
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578 ]
Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537]
Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201
Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vrs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762
AI
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals.
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 emphasized that procedural delays and lack of bona fides do not justify condoning significant delays in filing appeals, reinforcing the importance of adhering to limitation laws.
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be strictly justified, and lack of bona fides or negligence can prevent condonation of delay.
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals.
The law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning delays in filing appeals.
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 law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the government, and a mere bureaucratic delay is not sufficient to justify the condonation of an inordinate delay in filing an appeal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.