Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shobha Singh, wife of Sri Kishore Chandra - Respondent
L.P.A. No.491 of 2023 with I.A. No. 1900 of 2024 & I.A. No.1899 of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2024
DELAY CONDONATION - LIMITATION ACT - Section 5 - The court discussed the principles of delay condonation 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 of proof lies on the party seeking condonation to demonstrate that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control and that negligence or lack of bona fides cannot be attributed to them. The court ultimately found that the reasons provided by the state for the delay were insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation and the appeal itself.
Fact of the Case:
The state filed an intra-court appeal against a judgment allowing a writ petition, but the appeal was filed 124 days late. The state sought to condone this delay, citing bureaucratic processes and the need for legal opinions as reasons for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons provided for the delay were inadequate and did not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period and the need for diligence in legal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the state.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is designed to ensure timely resolution of disputes and that any delay must be justified by a sufficient cause. The court also noted that bureaucratic delays do not automatically qualify as sufficient cause, especially when the party seeking condonation has not acted with diligence.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and any pending interlocutory applications.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 1900 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for ignoring the defect no.8 reported vide stamp reporting dated 08.09.2023 pertaining to filing of typed copy page nos.93-108, 114, 119, 121, 141, 149, 155, 162, 175-191, 194-196, 198-204, 206-238, 240, 241, 253-284.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted by referring to the averment made in the instant interlocutory application that after efforts having been made the office of the appellant/applicant is unable to trace out the original copies of the same, therefore, prayer has been made that the aforesaid defect may be ignored.
3. This Court, considering the nature of the aforesaid defect, is hereby ignoring the same.
L.P.A. No. 491 of 2023:
4. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2073 of 2020 by which the writ petition has been allowed.
I.A. No. 1899 of 2024:
5. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 08.09.2023, there is delay of 124 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 1899 of 2024 has been filed for condoning such delay.
6. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 124 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.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants 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.
8. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application is that after pronouncement of the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2023, the concerned department sought for opinion from the office of the learned Advocate General through Law Department, Government of Jharkhand. Thereafter, upon receipt of the file, the learned Advocate General gave his opinion to file LPA which was communicated to the concerned Department in terms of Letter No.5905 dated 04.05.2023 which was communicated by the office of the Kanke Anchal, Kanke, Ranchi vide letter dated 04.05.2023 to the Additional Collector, Ranchi.
In pursuance of the said letter, the file was placed before the office of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Magistrate, Ranchi on 08.05.2023 and on the same day, the Kanke Anchal, Kanke, Ranchi was directed to file appeal. Thereafter, grounds of appeal was prepared and the same was again placed before the Additional Collector, Ranchi for approval and thereafter, on 01.06.2023 the draft of the appeal was prepared and placed before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi for approval.
Thereafter, the file was again forwarded to the Kanke Anchal, Kanke, Ranchi for necessary corrections in the said draft and on 12.06.2023, file was again placed before the Additional Collector, Ranchi for perusal.
Thereafter, on 26.06.2023 the file was placed before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Magistrate, Ranchi for approval and after getting approval, the Kanke Anchal, Kanke, Ranchi was authorized to file the memo of appeal and thereafter, the memo of appeal was filed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel 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 the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.
10. 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 c
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.
The law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning delays in filing appeals.
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 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 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 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 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....
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
