Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
I.P. MUKERJI, CJ, W. DIENGDOH
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
RFN (GD) R. Ramu S/o (L) R.P. Naidu – Respondent
| 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 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.
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
