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 – Appellants
Versus
Poonam Pandey, w/o D.K. Pandey – Respondent
L.P.A. No.645 of 2023 With I.A. No. 1897 of 2024 & I.A. No.1898 of 2024
Decided on : 09-05-2024
[LIMITATION] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY] - [ACT SECTION LIST: 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 due to circumstances beyond their control and that mere bureaucratic delays are insufficient. The court referenced several precedents to reinforce the notion that the government must also comply with the same standards of diligence and timeliness as private parties.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an intra-court appeal against a judgment allowing a writ petition, but the appeal was filed 188 days late. The appellant 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 insufficient. It emphasized that the movement of files within government departments does not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court noted that previous cases had established a precedent for strict adherence to limitation periods, even for government entities.
Issues: Whether the delay of 188 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 designed to ensure timely resolution of disputes and that the burden of proof lies on the party seeking condonation of delay. It emphasized that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not excuse delays and that a liberal approach to condonation must still consider the bona fides of the party seeking relief.
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. 1898 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for ignoring the defect no.10 reported vide stamp reporting dated 22.11.2023 pertaining to filing of typed copy page nos.85, 87, 98, 100-109, 114-136, 138, 139, 141, 157-252, 281-297, 298, 307-326, 332, 333, 336-338.
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. 645 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. 3691 of 2020 by which the writ petition has been allowed.
I.A. No. 1897 of 2024:
5. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 22.11.2023, there is delay of 188 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 1897 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 188 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 consider the appli
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 must be strictly adhered to, and the burden lies on the party seeking condonation to demonstrate that the delay was due to sufficient cause, free from negligence or lack of bona....
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 strict and must be adhered to; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning 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 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 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 bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals.
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
