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 Director of Accounts, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Malti Devi, W/o. Sikander Singh & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.728 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2024
[DELAY] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY] - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act] - [The court discussed the principles of condoning inordinate delay as per 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 delay of 1341 days was not adequately explained, and previous judgments were referenced to illustrate the necessity of diligence and bona fides in seeking condonation. The court concluded that the reasons provided did not meet the threshold for condonation, leading to the dismissal of the application.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an intra-court appeal against a single judge's order directing payment of gratuity without interest and leave encashment with statutory interest. The appeal was filed after a delay of 1341 days, prompting the appellant to seek condonation of this delay, citing reasons including the misplacement of the certified copy of the order and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient. It noted that the appellant had not acted with due diligence, as there was a significant gap of time without any effort to rectify the defects in the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period and the necessity of a bona fide explanation for any delay.
Issues: Whether the delay of 1341 days in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is strict and must be enforced unless a sufficient cause is demonstrated. It highlighted that negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant would preclude the condonation of delay, and the burden of proof lies with the party seeking such condonation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently dismissed 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 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2030 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition was allowed directing the authority concerned to ensure the payment of gratuity however without interest, but leave encashment was directed to be paid with statutory interest.
I.A.No.3572 of 2024
2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 1341 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.3572 of 2024.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 1341 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 though has made application for certified copy of impugned order on 15.07.2018 which was handed over on 19.07.2018 but due to inadvertence the said certified copy got misplaced in the office of advocate, who represented the appellant before the writ Court. Later on, the memo of appeal, as per instruction was filed on 07.12.2018 with the Web Copy of impugned order dated 28.06.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2030 of 2017.
5. It has further been stated that the appeal was listed on 02.03.2020 by which two weeks’ peremptory order was granted to remove the defects but due to spread of Covid-19 and lockdown the defects could not be removed, as such the appeal was dismissed for default, which has been informed by the Registry of this Court on 02.11.2020. It is stated that after getting such information, Civil Miscellaneous Petition being C.M.P NO. 412 of 2021 was filed on 30.11.2021 for restoration of the appeal [LPA No. 728 of 2018], which was allowed vide order dated 13.02.2024, subject to removal of defects as pointed out in LPA No. 728 of 2018.
6. It has further been submitted that by another peremptory order time was granted for removing the defects, which also includes the filing of certified copy of writ court order. It has been submitted that after filing of application for fresh certified copy, since earlier one was misplaced, the Registry through fresh stamp reporting dated 18.03.2024 pointed out the limitation of 1341 days. However, on 06.04.2024 during course of arranging the files in the Office, the first certified copy of the impugned order passed in writ petition dated 28.06.2018 which was handed over on 19.07.2018 was found in another file, which has been annexed with the instant Interlocutory Application.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that considering the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the delay as pointed out by the office is not intentional and deliberate and if the delay is not condoned the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 th
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 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 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 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 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
