Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Nand Kishore Sinha - Respondent
L.P.A. No.649 of 2023
Decided on : 18-04-2024
[LIMITATION] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY] - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act] - [The court discussed the principles surrounding the condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a sufficient cause is demonstrated. The court highlighted that procedural delays and bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient grounds for condonation. The interpretations of 'sufficient cause' were drawn from various precedents, establishing that negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant would lead to dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.]
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed against a judgment that quashed a disciplinary punishment. The appeal was filed after a delay of 365 days, prompting the appellants to seek condonation of this delay, citing procedural reasons for the tardiness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons provided for the delay were insufficient, primarily attributing the delay to bureaucratic processes rather than any bona fide reasons. The court emphasized that the movement of files within the department does not justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
Issues: Whether the delay of 365 days in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is to be applied rigorously and that the burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate a sufficient cause for the delay. The court referenced several precedents to establish that mere procedural delays do not meet the threshold for condonation.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal as well.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1729 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition was allowed by quashing the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority.
I.A.No.3802 of 2024
2. It appears from the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 29.01.2024 that notice has been issued upon the respondents.
3. It further appears from the stamp report dated 24.11.2023 that altogether 10 defects have been pointed out.
4. It has further been reported that report regarding limitation is made after removal of defect no.1, i.e., the certified filed and thereafter, the issue of limitation has been considered by the office which stood expired on 20.03.2023.
5. The office has pointed out the limitation of 365 days as per the calculation made at the back of page no.77.
6. It is, thus, evident that as on the date, when the coordinate Bench has issued notice on 29.01.2024, the office has not pointed out the limitation, since, the defect as was pointed out by the office impugning of the certified copy, had not been filed. However, the defect with respect to filing of certified copy of impugned order has been reported, thereafter, the issue of limitation has been considered by the Office.
7. As per the record, the limitation petition for condonation of delay has been filed on 15.04.2024 and when the matter was taken up on 16.04.2024, the case has been sought to be listed on 18.04.2024.
8. Accordingly, the matter has been listed on Board today, i.e., on 18.04.2024.
9. This Court in view of the aforesaid fact, needs to deal first with the issue of limitation for which, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.3802 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 365 days, wherein, the following explanation has been furnished:-
(ii) On 23.08.2023, the case file was sent to the departmental retainer for preparation of the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal were formulated and on 04.09.2023, it was placed for approval of the departmental Secretary. Subsequently, on 03.10.2023, the conducting counsel was consulted along with the grounds of appeal and thereafter, sometime was consumed in preparation of memo of appeal and on 09.11.2023, final draft of the memo of appeal was prepared, thereafter, on 10.11.2023, the deponent was authorized for filing appeal before the Court.
(iii) Vide letter dated 06.12.2023, the learned conducting counsel intimated the department with respect to requirement of certified copy of the impugned order and for removal of other defects and thus, the certified copy of the judgment dated 17.02.2023 was obtained and filed on 19.03.2024.
10. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 365 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.3802 of 2024.
11. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 365 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.
12. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that the order dated 17.02.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.1729 of 2007 was received in the department on 25.07.2023 vide letter no.3034 dated 13.07.2023.
13. Upon receipt of the same the matter was deliberated upon
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 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....
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 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 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.
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
