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
Ved Prakash Singh, son of Shri Surendra Singh – Respondent
L.P.A. No.592 of 2022 With I.A. No. 10971 of 2022
Decided on : 16-04-2024
[DELAY CONDONATION] - [INTRA-COURT APPEAL] - [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 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 that the government is not exempt from adhering to limitation periods and that a lack of bona fides or negligence can lead to the dismissal of delay applications.]
Fact of the Case:
The intra-court appeal was filed against a judgment allowing a writ petition, but it was barred by a delay of 110 days. The appellant sought to condone this delay, citing bureaucratic processes and holidays as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.
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 the appellant failed to act with diligence and bona fides, leading to the dismissal of the delay condonation application.
Issues: Whether the delay of 110 days in filing the intra-court appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is to be applied rigorously and that the burden lies on the party seeking condonation to demonstrate a sufficient cause. The court emphasized that bureaucratic delays do not excuse the failure to file within the prescribed time frame, and that the government must adhere to the same standards as private litigants.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application was dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the intra-court appeal and any pending interlocutory applications.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5616 of 2021 by which the writ petition has been allowed.
I.A. No. 10971 of 2022:
2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 22.12.2022, there is delay of 110 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 10971 of 2022 has been filed for condoning such delay.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 110 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. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant 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.
5. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application is that after the order dated 27.07.2022 having being passed in W.P.(C) No. 5616 of 2021, the file was placed by the Section Officer before the Under Secretary of the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand on 22.08.2022.
Thereafter, the file was placed before the Additional Secretary on 07.09.2022 for placing the file before the Secretary of the Department for direction to file L.P.A. and also for taking opinion from the learned Advocate General.
Thereafter, the file was placed by the Additional Secretary before the Secretary of the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand on 08.09.2022 for taking opinion of the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand for filing the L.P.A. against the order dated 27.07.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5616 of 2021.
Thereafter, the file was placed before the Department of Law and Justice, Government of Jharkhand on 09.09.2022 for taking opinion to file LPA.
Thereafter, after the opinion of the learned Advocate General for filing LPA against the order dated 27.07.2022, the file was sent to the office of learned AAG-II on 20.09.2022 for preparing the grounds and some more documents were required for preparing the LPA and in the meantime, Durga Puja Holidays started and the department was also closed, thereafter, the documents were provided by the Department to the office of AAG-II.
Thereafter, the LPA along with the instant interlocutory application for condonation of delay has been filed.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
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
The law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning delays 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 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 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 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 delay in filing appeals must be strictly justified, and lack of bona fides or negligence can prevent condonation of delay.
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
