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
(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
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.