Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
PRASHANT KUMAR
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Chopra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
C.M. Application No. 20593 of 2017
1. Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia, Additional Advocate General as well as Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/State.
2. The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri in Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2001 ( Prabhagiya Van Adhikari and others v. Dev Kumar Chopra and others ), whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgement and decree dated 15.05.2000 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Suit No. 108 of 1995 ( Dev Kumar Chopra v. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari and others ) moved by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected. This appeal was filed with the delay of 4957 days.
3. This is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Factual matrix of the case are as follows:
4. The respondent nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) owned a brick-kiln and was in
Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires sufficient cause, particularly in State cases where habitual laxity is inexcusable; costs may be imposed to deter frivolous appeals....
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
The law of limitation applies equally to the State and private parties, with bureaucratic inefficiency not sufficient for condoning delay.
(1) Limitation – Condonation of delay – Phrase “within such period” signifies that period covered therein extends to not only original period within which, appeal or application, should have been fil....
Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires substantial justification, and the State is treated no differently than private litigants in these matters.
A liberal approach is essential in condoning delays, particularly for government bodies, ensuring that procedural delays do not hinder substantial justice.
The principle of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially regarding government bodies, without undue strictness on p....
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
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
