Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ., DEEPAK ROSHAN
Dhananjay Kumar Singh S/o Late Mahabir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condoning delay in filing an appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against condonation of delay (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. submissions from counsel regarding appropriateness of delay. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's analysis on justice considerations (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. nature of termination and allegations (Para 10) |
| 6. application allowed with conditions (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
I.A. No. 5116 of 2024 This application is filed to condone the delay of 245 days in filing the appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1849 of 2021, dt. 07.08.2023.
2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is contended by the applicants that he was not aware of the dismissal of his case by the learned Single Judge and he came to know about it only in February, 2024, when he contacted the office of his lawyer and requested the office clerk of the lawyer to obtain certified copy of the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. He states that the certified copy was applied on 24.02.2024 and was handed over on 07.03.2024 and he was informed about it only in the3rd week of March, 2024.
4. He contended that after discussing with his lawyer, he
The court condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal due to potential misleading submissions, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural lapses.
The court emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and the need for a justice-oriented approach in considering explanations for delay.
Merely because the applicant seeking condonation of delay is the Government, no exception can be made.
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.
The court emphasized that mere reliance on counsel does not justify inordinate delay in filing an appeal; sufficient cause must be shown by the appellant.
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.
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
A delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if sufficiently explained and if the party acted bona fide without negligence.
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
