IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
I.P. MUKERJI, CJ, W. DIENGDOH, J.
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
RFN (GD) R. Ramu S/o (L) R.P. Naidu – Respondent
W.A. No. 46 of 2024
Decided On : 19-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in appeal and grounds for condonation. (Para 1) |
| 2. responsibility for delays and substantive legal questions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. decision to condone delay and expedite appeal process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
1. There is a delay of 176 days in preferring the appeal. The appellants have made an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. The prayer for condonation is opposed by the respondent. It is submitted on his behalf that no good ground has been made out, the application for condonation should be dismissed and on that ground the appeal also not be entertained.
2. We have carefully considered the Section 5 application. The grounds have been stated in paragraph 4. We find that learned counsel who was entrusted with preparation of the appeal from the impugned judgment and order dated 5th March, 2024, for whatever reason took time from 14th June, 2024 to 2nd September, 2024, that is to say nearly three months to get the appeal ready. Furthermore, more than three months had been taken earlier, from the date of the impugned order, for the appellants to decide whether to prefer the appeal or not. Normally, the opinion that an appeal should be preferred comes from the legal department of the government and thereafter approved by its higher authority. Therefore, almost the entire delay was caused in the legal department of the government or in the office of its learned lawyer.
3. It is quite well settled that the litigant should not be penalised for any fault on the part of his lawyer. Although in this case the appellant is the Union of India, the same principle will apply.
4. Moreover, a substantial question needs to be tried in this appeal: whether an employee of a Central Security Force who has been discharged from service for an unauthorised absence and facing inquiry should be reinstated during the continuance of the inquiry?
5. For the above reasons, we condone the delay of 176 days.
6. The application, MC(WA) No. 46 of 2024 is allowed.
7. We admit the appeal.
8. As the respondent is appearing, we expedite hearing of the appeal dispensing with all formalities regarding service of notice, etc.
9. Advocate-on-Record for the appellants shall file an informal paper-book in this Court by 22nd April, 2025 serving a copy thereof on the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent at least seven days before the date fixed hearing of the appeal.
10. List the appeal on 5th May, 2025.
AI
The litigant should not be penalized for delays caused by their legal representation, allowing for condonation of delay in appeal filings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Condonation of Delay – Sufficient cause - The words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide i....
An application for condonation of delay must demonstrate plausible reasons; mere bureaucratic delays do not justify extending time limits for appeals.
The burden of proof lies on the applicant to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, and mere assertions are inadequate.
The State's request for condonation of delay must be accompanied by a sufficient cause; bureaucratic inefficiencies do not justify tardiness in legal proceedings.
The court reinforced that the State is treated equally with other litigants regarding the condonation of delay, requiring a valid explanation for any delay.
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.