Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
State Of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Ramprasad Singh – Respondent
WA No. 320 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Limitation
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed by the State authorities against a judgment, with a delay of 66 days. The appellants sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to inter-departmental consultations, administrative procedures, and official engagements within the Law Department.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the explanation provided by the State for the 66-day delay was vague and unsatisfactory. Relying on settled precedents, it emphasized that the government must adhere to the same limitation standards as private litigants. Since the State failed to show 'sufficient cause' or demonstrate bona fide diligence, the Court refused to condone the delay.
Issues: Whether the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal by the State should be condoned based on the reasons of administrative procedure and internal consultation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that administrative red-tape, inter-departmental consultation, and bureaucratic lethargy do not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay. The law mandates that the government, like any other litigant, must explain the period of delay with diligence and acceptable reasons, failing which the court is not obliged to exercise its discretionary power to condone such delay.
Result: Appeal dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Praveen Das
For the Respondents: None
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. state seeking condonation of delay based on administrative procedures. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement of 'sufficient cause' and the duty of government entities to demonstrate due diligence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. failure to provide satisfactory explanation leads to dismissal of appeal due to laches. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
22.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants. Also heard I.A. No.02 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 66 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that the delay is neither intentional nor willful, but occurred due to bona fide reasons. He further submits that after receiving the certified copy of the judgment, the matter required inter-departmental consultations and the Law Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, which took considerable time due to administrative procedures and multiple levels of approval. He also submits that the appellants have a strong case on merits, therefore, the delay if not condoned, would result in grave miscarriage of justice.
3. 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.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another , (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 instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
5. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya
