Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Bali Devi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others - Opp. Parties
C.M.P. No. 827 of 2019
Decided On : 14-03-2024
SUBSTITUTION - CIVIL PROCEDURE - Order XXII Rule 3, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court allowed the substitution of the deceased petitioner’s son as the applicant, correcting the procedural error in the application. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules while also considering the merits of the case. The court also discussed the principles of condoning delays in filing applications, highlighting that sufficient cause must be shown, and that the law of limitation is strict but can be relaxed under certain circumstances, particularly when the delay is due to unavoidable circumstances such as illness or pandemic. The court's decision was influenced by precedents that stress the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to ensure justice is served.
Fact of the Case:
The application was filed for the substitution of the deceased petitioner, Bali Devi, by her son Sanjay Gope. The original petitioner had died on 10.02.2020, and the application was initially filed under the wrong provision of law. Additionally, a separate application was filed to condone a delay of 641 days in preferring a Civil Miscellaneous Petition due to the death of the petitioner's father and the subsequent health issues faced by the original petitioner, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the substitution application and condoned the delay in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. It found that the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient and justified, considering the circumstances surrounding the original petitioner's death and the pandemic's impact.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application could be condoned and whether the substitution of the deceased petitioner was permissible under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is strict but can be relaxed if sufficient cause is shown. It emphasized that the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' should be liberal to ensure that justice is not denied due to procedural technicalities, especially in cases involving personal tragedies and unforeseen circumstances.
Final Decision: The court allowed the substitution of the petitioner and condoned the delay in filing the application, restoring the original petition to its position for further consideration.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 6861 of 2021
1. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant (one of the sons of the original petitioner), at the outset, seeks leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the provision of law under which this Interlocutory Application has been filed. It has been submitted that due to inadvertence, the application for substitution has been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, instead of invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Considering the aforesaid prayer, let necessary correction be made in course of the day.
3. The instant application has been filed for substitution of the sole petitioner, namely, Bali Devi who died on 10.02.2020 by one of her sons, namely, Sanjay Gope (applicant herein). It has been contended that affidavits have been filed on behalf of other surviving son and daughters of the original petitioner, namely, Seema Devi, Arvind Gope and Usha Devi. It has been submitted that the affidavits have been filed on their behalf as has been appended to Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit filed in furtherance to the statement made in the Interlocutory Application.
4. None is present to oppose on behalf of the State.
5. Considering the reason and the grounds taken in this Interlocutory Application, the same is allowed.
6. Let the Office carry out the necessary correction in the cause title of the Civil Misc. Petition.
7. I.A. No. 6861 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No.2292 of 2024
8. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 641 days in preferring the C.M.P.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay has been caused due to the reasons as referred in paragraph 6 to the instant Interlocutory Application. It has been contended that the father of the substituted petitioner, namely, Late Hari Gope, was a Constable in Bihar Military Police 6 Jamshedpur, who succumbed to injuries in course of encounter with the extremists. It has also been contended that the mother of the petitioner (the original writ petitioner) thereafter had suffered with various ailments and ultimately she died on 10.02.2020. Thereafter, due to pandemic Covid-19, the delay of 641 days has caused in filing the instant application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid delay may be condoned.
10. None is present on behalf of the State to oppose the application.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
12. This Court is conscious with the law that delay is to be condoned depending upon the sufficient cause if shown by the litigant concerned.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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 “A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarg
The court established that while the law of limitation is to be strictly adhered to, it can be relaxed in cases where sufficient cause is demonstrated, particularly in light of personal hardships and....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of showing sufficient cause for condoning delay and the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to ensure substantial justice.
The court established that a party seeking to condone a delay must demonstrate sufficient cause, and that negligence or lack of bona fides will preclude the granting of such relief, reinforcing the s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of bona fides and gross inaction and negligence are vital factors to be considered while condoning the delay. The court emphasized the im....
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and sufficient cause must be demonstrated for any delay in filing appeals.
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 court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal must be adequately justified, and negligence or lack of bona fides can bar condonation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause and bona fide motive when seeking condonation of delay.
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
