SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Brahmdeo Choudhary, son of Mahadeo Chaudhary – Respondent 
I.A. No.1136 of 2025. IN/AND L.P.A. No.75 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mrs. Darshna Poddar Mishra, A.A.G.-1
For the Respondents:Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate, Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.

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.

Headnote:

(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal - Applicants sought to condone a delay of 461 days in filing appeal against a judgment pronounced on 16.10.2019 - The court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, particularly regarding the failure to apply for a certified copy immediately after the judgment - The Supreme Court's orders extending limitation due to the pandemic did not apply as the period had already commenced before the lockdown - The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. (Paras 1-23)

Facts of the case:
The applicants filed for condonation of delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging a judgment delivered on 16.10.2019. They claimed delays were due to procedural formalities and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and did not demonstrate sufficient diligence to file the appeal in time.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal could be condoned based on the applicants' explanations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained, emphasizing the need for vigilance in pursuing legal rights and that the benefit of extended limitation did not apply as the delay was due to inaction prior to the pandemic.

Result: Application for condonation of delay dismissed, and the appeal also dismissed.

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 Director, Secondary Education on 24.01.2020 proposing to file Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment. It is stated that then the file was decided to be sent to the Departmental Retainer for preparing the Statement of Facts for filing Letters Patent Appeal through a note-sheet dt. 25.01.2020.

6. Thereafter, according to the applicants, Covid-19 pandemic came and because of that, Statement of Facts was prepared only on 19.05.2020, and then the Departmental Retainer was called for discussion on the Statement of Facts and the same was approved on 19.06.2020. It is stated that the file was moved for appointment of Law Officer on 24.06.2020 and thereafter, the appointment of the Law Officer happened and the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 24.02.2021.

7. Reliance is placed by Counsel for applicants on the judgment dt. 23.3.2020 of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 excluding the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals from 15.03.2020 till further orders.

8. It is contended by the counsel for the applicants that the said order came to an end on 08.03.2021 permitting relaxation of the period of limitation between 15.03.2021 and 14.03.2020. Therefore, it is contended that the period of limitation applicable to the instant case would be from 17.11.2019 to 14.03.202, i.e., 119 days and there are good grounds to condone the said period of delay.

9. It is stated that there was no willful omission on the part of the applicants and so the said period of delay was liable to be condoned as it was only caused by procedural formalities.

10. We do not agree with the submission of the counsel for the applicants that delay in filing the LPA has been satisfactorily explained by the applicants.

11. Admittedly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 16.10.2019 in presence of both the parties. The period of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is admittedly 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy.

12. It is not in dispute that the applicants applied for certified copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge only on 15.10.2020 i.e after almost one year from date of pronouncement of judgment by the learned Single Judge and got it on 22.10.2020.

What prevented the applicants from applying the certified copy of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge immediately after it was pronounced on 16.10.2019 is not explained by the applicants.

13. The Covid-19 pandemic commenced in March 2020 and the lockdown was imposed by the Central Government only on 24.03.2020. On 23.03.2020, the Supreme Court passed the above order extending the limitation with effect from 15.03.2020 which was continued upto 08.03.2021. Later other orders were also passed on 8.3.2021 and 27.9.2021.

14. Nothing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top