Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The Central Coalfields Ltd, through its General Manager (Legal) Sri Partha Bhattacharjee, son of Late P.C. Bhattacharjee and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sunita Kumari, D/o. Late Mahabir Munda and Anr. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.634 of 2022
Decided On : 15-05-2024
[LIMITATION] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY] - [Limitation Act, Section 5] - [The court discussed the principles of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a sufficient cause is shown. The court highlighted that the burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate that the delay was not due to negligence or lack of bona fides. The court referenced several precedents to illustrate that procedural delays, especially in public sector undertakings, do not automatically warrant condonation. Ultimately, the court found the reasons provided for the delay insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.]
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed against a judgment that directed Central Coalfields Limited to revisit its order regarding monetary compensation owed to the petitioner. The appeal was filed after a delay of 133 days, prompting the appellants to seek condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient to warrant condonation. It emphasized the need for a bona fide explanation and noted that procedural delays in public sector undertakings do not automatically justify extending the limitation period.
Issues: Whether the delay of 133 days in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and whether the reasons provided by the appellants constituted a sufficient cause.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is designed to ensure timely resolution of disputes and that the burden of proof lies on the party seeking condonation of delay to demonstrate that the delay was not due to negligence or lack of bona fides. The court also highlighted that mere procedural delays in public sector undertakings do not suffice as a valid reason for condonation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently the intra-court appeal, leaving the legal issues raised by the appellant open for consideration in future cases.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4141 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2019 and directed the Central Coalfields Limited to re-visit their own order and pass an order regarding payment of monetary compensation as per her entitlement to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
I.A. No.1631 of 2023
2. The instant appeal is barred by delay of 133 days, therefore, the instant Interlocutory Applications has been filed for condoning the aforesaid delay.
3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-CCL has advanced his argument on the issue of merit.
4. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the appeal is barred by limitation of 133 days and in consequence thereof an application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the said delay.
5. The notice has also been issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the issue of limitation and the admission, in terms thereof, appearance is there of the concerned respondent.
6. It has further been submitted that serious objection has been made in condoning the delay by filing the counter affidavit.
7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted by referring the ground that the said ground is sufficient because there is no action of the respondent authorities said to be negligent, rather, in each and every paragraph bonafide has been shown in approaching this Court by filing the instant appeal.
8. He has referred paragraph 4 to 7 of the delay condonation application.
9. On the other hand, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, by referring to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit has submitted that whatever ground shown in the delay condonation application cannot be said to be sufficient.
10. It has been submitted that the period of delay is not material, rather, reason to condone the delay is material and if the reason is said to be sufficient, then only the delay can be condoned irrespective of the period of delay.
11. Learned senior counsel, in the aforesaid backdrop, has submitted that before entering into the merit, the issue of limitation may be decided.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival submission, particularly of Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who has insisted this Court to go into the merit, this Court is of the view that if the appeal is barred by limitation, then it is the duty casted upon the Court to first decide the issue of limitation before entering into the issue on merit.
13. Therefore, the issue of limitation is being taken into consideration herein before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.
Grounds taken in the Interlocutory Application:
14. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application is that after being informed about the order dated 02.05.2022, the officials of the appellants-Company immediately contacted their lawyer and requested him to obtain certified copy of the order and the same was accordingly applied on 04.05.2022. After receipt of certified copy of the order on 07.07.2022, a legal opinion was sought from the panel lawyer of the appellants-Company.
15. Thereafter, the file was scrutinized by the concerned legal department of the appellants-Company and some more clarifications were was taken from their panel lawyer for Hon'ble Court and ultimately, the appellants- Company took a decision to prefer an appeal for which approval was required to be taken from the competent authority of the
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 principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied, and that any request for condonation of delay must be supported by a sufficient and reasonable explanation, which was not met in thi....
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 court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be strictly justified, and lack of bona fides or negligence can prevent condonation of delay.
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 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 applied strictly, and delay in filing appeals can only be condoned on sufficient cause, which was not established in this case.
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
