Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Ratneshwar Das – Respondent
L.P.A. No.16 of 2023, L.P.A. No.18 of 2023
Decided on : 06-05-2024
[DELAY CONDONATION] - [INTRA-COURT APPEALS] - [Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Limitation Act, Section 5] - [The court discussed the principles of delay condonation under the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a sufficient cause is demonstrated. The court highlighted that the reasons provided by the appellants for the delay were inadequate and did not meet the threshold of 'sufficient cause' as required by law, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.]
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeals were filed against a common order that set aside a previous order and directed the State to extend benefits to the petitioners. The appeals were filed after a delay of 285 days, prompting the appellants to seek condonation of this delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation for the delay was insufficient and did not demonstrate a bona fide effort to comply with the limitation period. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and the need for a reasonable explanation for any delay.
Issues: Whether the delay of 285 days in filing the intra-court appeals 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 the burden lies on the party seeking condonation to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also noted that mere bureaucratic delays or procedural red tape do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
Final Decision: The applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of both intra-court appeals.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Both the intra-court appeals, filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises out of common order dated 08.03.2022, hence they are taken up together.
2. The instant intra-court appeals, under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, are directed against the order/judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2290 of 2020 and W.P.(S) No. 2257 of 2020 respectively, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition was allowed setting aside order dated 22.08.2019 and directed the State to extend all consequential benefits with back wages to the petitioners.
I.A. No. 2077 of 2024 in LPA No. 16 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2076 of 2024 in LPA. No. 18 of 2023:
3. Both the appeals are barred by inordinate delay of 285 days, therefore, the instant Interlocutory Applications has been filed for condoning the aforesaid delay.
4. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeals have been filed after inordinate delay of 285 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.
Grounds taken in the Interlocutory Application:
5. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after the order was uploaded online, the same was communicated to the Department by the office of Executive Engineer vide letter dated 16.07.2022 and the same was circulated in the Department for further action on the same and preparation of Grounds of Appeal by the Legal Retainer of the Department. After preparation of Grounds of Appeal on 22.08.2022 by the Legal Retainer of the Department, the same was sent to the authorities for discussion and recommendation. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Department of Law for their opinion as to whether the order of Hon’ble High Court be complied with or the same should be appealed by way of filing intra-court appeal. The Principal Secretary-cum-L.R., Department of Law, after deliberation sent the file to learned Advocate General who gave opinion that LPA be filed through learned AAG-II. Pursuant thereto, the file was sent back by the Law Department to the Road Construction Department with the opinion of the learned Advocate General. As soon as the file was marked to learned AAG-II, the LPA was drafted and prepared for filing, which took time causing delay in filing the appeal.
6. It has been submitted that delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to various reasons beyond the control of the appellants and if the delay is not condoned the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation applications, however, 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 is 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
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 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 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.
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
