Delay in filing appeals must be adequately justified; failure to provide satisfactory reasons leads to dismissal.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the judgment dated 31.03.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17677 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Heard on C.M. Application No. 2 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay. The writ appeal has been filed with a delay of 797 days.

3. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , it is stated that the appellant was suffering from medical ailments and, therefore, she could not communicate with her counsel or take a decision regarding the filing of the writ appeal. The impugned order was passed on 31.03.2021. The writ appeal was filed on 02.11.2023 with a delay of 797 days. The appellant is a widow and has no one to look after her. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the writ appeal may be condoned.

3.1 The prayer in the writ petition was to quash Ext.P5 Gazette Notification and Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent. The appellant had also sought a direction to the second respondent to pass an order declaring her as the wife and one of the legal heirs of the deceased Mohanan. The learned Single Judge, finding no reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order passed by the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk Office, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Per contra, The learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent opposed the prayer for condonation of delay, contending that there is an inordinate delay of 797 days in filing the writ appeal. It is submitted that, on a perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay, no cogent or satisfactory grounds have been made out to justify such delay. Not even a single document regarding the alleged medical ailment has been produced to substantiate her claim. In these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and, consequently, the writ appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

5. The issue relating to condonation of delay is no longer res integra, and the Supreme Court has settled the legal position through a catena of decisions, which are reproduced hereunder:

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. V. K. Thangappan and another

5.1 The Supreme Court, in the above case, has held as follows: “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.”

1 (2006) 4 SCC 322

M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

5.2 The Supreme Court in M.P. Ram Mohan Raja held as follows:

“11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard- and fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10-1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of i