Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Lakhi Lal Hansda – Respondent
L.P.A. No.77 of 2023
Decided on : 15-04-2024
[DELAY] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY] - [Limitation Act, Section 5; Various Supreme Court Judgments] - [The court discussed the principles of condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that sufficient cause must be shown for any delay in filing appeals. The court highlighted that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to, even for government entities. The interpretations of 'sufficient cause' were examined, indicating that negligence or lack of bona fides would preclude the condonation of delay. The court ultimately found that the reasons provided for the 179-day delay were insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation and the appeal itself.]
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed against a judgment quashing an order by the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand. The appeal was filed after a delay of 179 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 inadequate and did not meet the threshold of 'sufficient cause' as required by law. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period and the need for diligence in legal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the delay of 179 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 must be applied rigorously. It established that a party seeking condonation of delay must demonstrate a bona fide reason for the delay, and that negligence or inaction would negate any claim for condonation.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3478 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Inspector General of Police (provision), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, has been quashed.
2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 179 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.6955 of 2023.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 179 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 the appellant came to know the order dated 15.09.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.3478 of 2010 on 24.11.2022, thereafter, it has been forwarded to the under Secretary on 20.12.2022 for obtaining the legal opinion through legal section of the police headquarter. On 21.12.2022, the under Secretary forwarded the same to the Addl. Director General (Head Quarter) and thereafter, it was directed to take legal opinion for taking further recourse in the matter. On 03.01.2023, the police headquarter produced the file for legal opinion before the Advocate General and it has been opined to file appeal against the order dated 15.09.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.3478 of 2010 on 17.01.2023. Thereafter, the documents and relevant records were obtained and given to the Advocate for preparation of statement of facts and grounds of appeal on 19.01.2023.
5. The grounds of appeal and statement of facts have been approved by the department on 07.02.2023 and handed it over to the concerned government counsel on 09.02.2023 and then the instant appeal was drafted and filed on 14.02.2023, which according to the appellants is not intentional rather on account of procedural dealy and taking final decision, some extra time has been consumed by the appellant.
6. Learned Sr. SC-III 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.
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 the 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 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 lies on the party seeking condonation of delay to demonstrate sufficient cause, which must not be based on mere procedural delays or ....
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 a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides; otherwise, the delay wi....
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 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 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 emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown, with strict adherence to the law of limitation.
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
