Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Syed Zakir Hussain S/o Late Syed Md. Anwar Pandit – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 448 of 2023, I.A. No. 7710 of 2023
Decided On : 29-01-2024
[DELAY] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY IN APPEAL] - [Limitation Act, Section 5; Legal Maxims: interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium; dura lex sed lex] - [The court emphasized that the law of limitation is designed to ensure timely resolution of disputes and that delays must be justified by sufficient cause. The court referenced various precedents to highlight that while a liberal approach may be taken in interpreting 'sufficient cause', negligence or lack of bona fides cannot be overlooked. The court ultimately found that the appellant's explanation for the 219-day delay was insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the delay condonation application and the appeal itself.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an intra-court appeal against a judgment dismissing his writ petition, but the appeal was filed 219 days late. The appellant claimed ignorance of the dismissal and sought to condone the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's explanation for the delay was inadequate and demonstrated a lack of diligence. The court referenced established legal principles regarding the condonation of delay and concluded that the delay was inordinate and unjustified.
Issues: Whether the delay of 219 days in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the explanation provided by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously and that a party seeking condonation of delay must demonstrate sufficient cause. The absence of diligence or bona fides in the appellant's actions was a critical factor in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and any pending interlocutory applications.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 13.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4918 of 2017 by which the writ petition has been dismissed.
I.A. No. 7710 of 2023
2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 219 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 7710 of 2023 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 219 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 appellant has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the instant 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 the appellant-writ petitioner was having no knowledge about the disposal of the case and when he has tried to ascertain the position of the case, it has come to his knowledge that his case has already been dismissed on 13.12.2022.
6. Thereafter, immediately on 27.07.2023, the appellant has applied for certified copy of the order dated 13.12.2022 and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 4918 of 2017 has not informed the petitioner about the dismissal of the case due to which delay of 219 days has occurred in fling the instant appeal.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 351.
10. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. vs. 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:
11. In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held at paragraph-6 as under:
The principle that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a party can demonstrate sufficient cause for any delay, with negligence or lack of bona fides being significant factor....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
The law of limitation must be applied strictly, and delay in filing appeals can only be condoned on sufficient cause, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause and bona fide motive when seeking condonation of delay.
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 of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay, emphasizing the absence of negligence or lack of bona fide motive.
The Court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning appeal delays must include diligence and bona fides; ignorance of law and financial hardship alone are insufficient grounds for delay beyond t....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that sufficient cause for delay must be adequately demonstrated, with a focus on the conduct and diligence of the party seeki....
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
