Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
S.K. Mishra, C.J. and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Kismat Begum and Ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.99 of 2021 with I.A.No.1589 of 2021
Decide on 23.2.2023
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties, rather idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time – Generally, lis is not to be rejected on technical ground of limitation but if filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then duty of Court to consider application to condone delay before entering into merit of lis – When a litigant does not act with bona fide motive and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part, period of limitation for filing appeal expires, such lack of bona fide motive and gross inaction and negligence are vital factors which should be taken into consideration while considering question of condonation of delay. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation – Condonation of delay – While considering delay condonation application, Court of Law is required to consider sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also approach of litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of period of limitation, right is accrued in favour of other side and as such, it is necessary to look into bona fide motive of litigant – Merely because sufficient cause has been made out in facts of a given case, there is no right to appellant to have delay condoned – Applicant must satisfy Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, Court should not allow application for condonation of delay – Court has to examine whether mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover ulterior purpose. (Paras 9 and 11)
Result: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 22.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.825 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the decision of the Administrative Authority as contained in letter dated 04.08.2009 has been quashed holding the writ petitioner entitled for salary of Headmaster from the date of his entitlement, i.e., on completion of seven years as Headmaster.
I.A.No.1589 of 2021
2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 534 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.1589 of 2021.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 534 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.
4. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after coming to the knowledge of order passed by this Court, copy of the order was obtained and it was decided to prefer Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
It has been stated that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the appellants could not file the Letters Patent Appeal in time. However, in the meantime, it has barred by 534 days and as such, the delay has been caused which according to the appellants is not intentional rather on account of procedural and taking final decision some extra time has been consumed by the appellant.
The State-appellants, therefore, has prayed to condone the delay.
5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand has vehemently argued that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.
6. Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, who has appeared being called upon by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and has submitted that the limitation is not fit to be condoned since no sufficient ground has been assigned as would be evident from the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application filed for condonation of delay which is of 534 days.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.
It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351.
The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that:—
“A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postp
SupremeToday
Limitation – Merely because sufficient cause has been made out in facts of a given case, there is no right to appellant to have delay condoned.
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides.
The law of limitation is fundamental and must be strictly adhered to; mere procedural delays or bureaucratic inefficiencies do not justify the condonation of inordinate delays in filing appeals.
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides.
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides; otherwise, the delay wi....
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and the burden lies on the party seeking condonation of delay to demonstrate sufficient cause, which must not be based on mere procedural delays or ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of bona fides and gross inaction and negligence are vital factors to be considered while condoning the delay. The court emphasized the im....
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
