IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN, J, M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ.
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Brahmdeo Choudhary, son of Mahadeo Chaudhary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
I.A. No.1136 of 2025.
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963 to condone the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 16.10.2019 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7556 of 2017.
2. The appeal was filed on 19.02.2021 by the applicants.
3. Initially, the applicants filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.1121 of 2021 for condonation of period of limitation in filing appeal, but later on, they filed I.A. No.1135 of 2025 for withdrawal of I.A. No.1121 of 2021 which was allowed on 06.02.2025, with a liberty to pursue I.A. No.1136 of 2025 filed by them for the same relief.
4. It may be pointed out that the judgment impugned was pronounced on 16.10.2019 in the presence of both parties, but the appeal, as pointed out earlier, was filed on 19.02.2021. There is a delay of 461 days in filing the same according to the note put up by the Registry.
5. Counsel for the applicants sought to contend that free copy of the judgment was sent to the Department on 08.01.2020; then it was examined by the Department at different levels and reviewed on 16.01.2020 and put up before the Deputy Di
Sagufa Ahmed and Others V. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained, and inaction prior to the pandemic does not qualify for condonation under the Limitation Act.
Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that government entities must demonstrate diligence in adhering to the statutory limit for appeal filing and cannot claim special treatment in delay situations without sufficient....
The court ruled that bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the law of limitation binds all parties.
Delay in filing an appeal may not be condoned without a sufficient cause shown, emphasizing the importance of diligence and adherence to limitation periods in judicial proceedings.
The court underscored that delays due to administrative negligence cannot justify condonation in legal proceedings, particularly for state agencies, emphasizing the importance of diligence in adherin....
The court ruled that governmental entities must demonstrate diligence in filing appeals, and bureaucratic delays do not suffice as grounds for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
An application for condonation of delay must provide a valid and justifiable explanation for the delay, and vague or misleading statements in the affidavit will not suffice.
Sufficient cause must be demonstrated for condonation of delay; bureaucratic inefficiencies do not qualify as valid reasons under law, as legal deadlines apply equally to all parties.
Both public entities and individuals are strictly bound by the law of limitation, and dilatory conduct without sufficient reason does not merit condonation of delay in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.