Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
State of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Singh Kshatriya – Respondent
WA No. 305 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Limitation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appeal - Delay condonation - Sufficient cause - Establishing that the cause for delay arose within the limitation period - The court emphasized that the party seeking condonation must explain what prevented them from filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period - Excusing delay as a matter of generosity is not permissible especially when the State fails to show reasonable diligence. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The State filed an appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition with a delay of 196 days. The State attributed the delay to procedural formalities, internal departmental processing, and the time taken to obtain legal opinions from the Advocate General's office.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the explanation provided by the State was lacking in specificity and did not constitute sufficient cause for such a significant delay. The court reiterated that internal bureaucratic processes and red-tape are not acceptable excuses for failing to comply with statutory limitation timelines.
Issues: Whether the State provided sufficient cause to justify the condonation of a 196-day delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Unless a government department demonstrates reasonable, acceptable explanation showing bona fide efforts and diligent performance within the prescribed limitation period, the court cannot exercise discretion to condone delay. The rules of limitation are based on public policy and equity, and the State is not entitled to special, lenient treatment over private litigants.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashank Thakur
For the Respondents: Sharad Mishra
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. state departmental delay due to administrative procedures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. stringent application of limitation rules against government. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. dismissal of appeal for lack of sufficient cause. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants, as well as Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on 04.07.2025 in WPS No. 5265 of 2018. Thereafter, appellants/State authorities through the Department had sought an opinion from the office of the Advocate General vide letter dated 18.08.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Office of the Advocate General, vide its letter dated 17.09.2025, accorded opinion for filing the appeal. Subsequently, a proposal was forwarded to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department through the Department for grant of sanction and accordingly, sanction for filing the appeal was granted on 26.02.2026. Thereafter, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was appointed by the Department vide order dated 02.03.2026, and the present appeal has thereafter been drafted and filed before this Hon’ble Court.
3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, faced delay due to compliance with various departmental formalities and the functioning of Government machinery, as the State Government is a multi-functional body and, at times, completion of departmental formalities takes unexpectedly long time. Therefore, in certain cases, the State is prevented from filing proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The instant appeal has, therefore, been filed with a delay of 196 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays that the delay of 196 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.
4. The question for determination before this Court is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e. the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for condonation of delay.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held as under:-
“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and in
