Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ, DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
The State of Jharkhand - Appellant
Versus
Ram Binay Mishra S/o Late Ram Chandra Mishra - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 731 of 2023
Decided On : 05-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ashwani Bhushan
The court established that a delay of 1482 days in filing a Letters Patent Appeal is unreasonable without sufficient cause, highlighting the necessity for timely challenges in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Letters Patent Appeal - Delay in filing - Condonation of delay of 1482 days for filing appeal against judgment in W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2017 - Court rejected application for condonation as no sufficient cause was shown and delays were not reasonable. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought to challenge a judgment from 2017, but did not provide sufficient reasons for the significant delay in filing their appeal, being aware of the judgment at the time.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the arguments for condonation of delay, stating that awareness of the judgment and lack of a timely challenge negated any claim of reasonable cause.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the substantial delay in filing the appeal could be condoned given the circumstances presented by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay of 1482 days is exceedingly unreasonable without sufficient justification and that awareness of the judgment negates the claim for condonation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing appeal due to jurisdiction issues (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. challenges to delay lack sufficient justification (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. 1482-day delay not reasonable (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. ia dismissed; appeal dismissed (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
I.A. No. 686 of 2025 in LPA No. 731 of 2023.
1. This application is filed to condone the delay of 1482 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment passed on 04.12.2017 by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2017.
2. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the said Writ petition in terms of the order dated 21.04.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 4284 of 2016.
3. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4284 of 2016 was challenged in L.P.A. No. 35 of 2018 and it was allowed on 21.02.2022 and the matter was remanded to the Single Judge for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to the respondents in the writ petition. It is further stated that post remand, the W.P.(S) 4284 of 2016 was again allowed on 02.05.2023 and the said order was challenged in L.P.A. No. 629 of 2023 which is still pending.
4. It is contended that the respondents/writ petitioners had filed Cont. Case (Civil) No. 151 of 2018 which was pending and after getting communication from the State Counsel regarding order passed in the Contempt Case, the matter was considered and it was realized that similar issue was pending consideration in L.P.A. No. 629 of 2023 and the file was then put up before the competent authority and then the appeal was filed on 23.12.2023.
5. From the narration of the facts above, it is, thus, clear that the appeal was filed on 23.12.2023 challenging the judgment dated 04.12.2017 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6702 of 2017 with a delay of 1482 days.
6. We are unable to accept the stand of the applicants about the causes for the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment rendered in W.P. (S) No. 6702 of 2017, because the said impugned judgment was known to have been passed on the basis of the judgment in W.P. (S) No. 4284 of 2016 in presence of the counsel for the applicants.
7. In fact, before the learned Single Judge, even a counter affidavit was not filed by the applicants herein, and the counsel for the applicants had even conceded before the learned Single Judge that the issue raised in W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2017 was covered by a judgment rendered on 07.11.2017 in W.P.(S) No.3986 of 2017 and judgment dt. 21.04.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 4284 of 2016.
8. It is not permissible for the appellants to file the instant appeal after a delay of 1482 days, since they were fully aware that the challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Letters Patent Appeal can only be made within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of judgment by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2017 decided on 04.12.2017.
9. By no stretch of imagination can be delay of 1482 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal be said to be reasonable, particularly when, no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the said period of delay.
10. Therefore, the I.A. No. 686 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. No costs.
