IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.24 of 2021 With I.A. No. 8481 of 2024 Shobha Kumari, aged about 29 years, Wife of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Resident of village Chetar, P.O. Gosa, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.

… Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha, Government of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.

Dhurwa, District Ranchi

3. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. Ramgarh, P.S.

Ramgarh, District Ramgarh

4. The Principal, District and Session Judge, Ramgarh, P.O.-Ramgarh, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh

5. The District and Additional Session Judge (First), Civil Court, Ramgarh, P.O.- Ramgarh, P.S.- Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh

6. The Registrar, Civil Court, Ramgarh, P.O.-Ramgarh, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh. … Respondents ----------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II -----

Order No.10/Dated: 31.10.2025 I.A. No. 8481 of 2024

1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 973 days in filing the instant Civil Review.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant Civil Review has been filed for review of order dated 24.10.2019 passed in L.P.A.

No. 780 of 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after dismissal of the L.P.A. No. 780 of 2018 dated 24.10.2019, the certified copy of the order was applied immediately on 25.10.2019 but somehow the said certified copy was lost and merely photocopy of the said certified copy was available.

4. It has been submitted that after putting best effort the certified copy of the said order could not be found, so again the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the impugned order and thus, filed the instant review petition annexing the said photocopy of the certified copy of the impugned order.

5. It has been submitted that after filing of the instant review petition, the defect was pointed out to file certified copy of the impugned order and due to Covid Pandemic the subsequent certified copy could not be received and filed during the relevant time. Thereafter, the certified copy of the impugned order has been filed and further stamp reporting was done wherein it has been pointed out the delay of 973 days in filing the instant review application.

6. It is further submitted that there cannot be so much delay of 973 days in filing the instant review petition, which has been filed in the year 2021, during the period of Covid Pandemic, and the delay has been caused due to time taken in searching the earlier certified copy of the impugned order and due to the Covid Pandemic during the relevant time.

7. Thus, the learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the review petition cannot be attributed to the present petitioner, reason being that the same is not deliberate rather the delay has been caused due to Covid Pandemic.

8. It has further been submitted that if the delay is not condoned in filing the review petition, then the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated.

9. 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 an application suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court is to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

10. 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