Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J., Deepak Roshan
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department – Appellant
Versus
DR RAM PRAKASH RAM – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay process initiated. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. delay in certified copy application unexplained. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. delayed appeal filing reflects neglect. (Para 6) |
| 4. supreme court precedence followed on delay. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. delay condonation standards reaffirmed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. insufficient cause for delay found. (Para 12) |
| 7. application and appeal dismissed. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
I.A. No.10928 of 2023 in/and L.P.A. No. 676 of 2023
This application is filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 to condone the delay of 318 days in filing this Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 15.12.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7486 of 2013.
2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the said order was communicated on 24.02.2023 by the Registry of the Court and file was put up before the Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department on 24.02.2023. It is stated that thereafter a decision was taken to prefer appeal and the file was forwarded to the Advocate General, who handed it over to conducting lawyer to prepare memo of appeal and the appeal was ultimately filed on 3
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 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.
Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
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 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.
Delay in filing a petition cannot be condoned without plausible justification, regardless of the party's status, emphasizing adherence to the law of limitation.
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.
The law of limitation applies universally, and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals.
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
