Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
The principle that technical delays should not lead to rejection of appeals is acknowledged, but inordinate delays undermine the integrity of the judicial process, and strict scrutiny is applied ["State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand VS Murlidhar Mishra, son of Late Bhikhan Mishra - Jharkhand"], ["Tinku Kumar Rawani, S/o. Madan Mohan Rawani VS State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Home Department - Jharkhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. vs Ram Nayan Yadav - Allahabad"]- ["Anandavalliyamma, W/o Ramachandran Nair VS Kerala Housing Finance Ltd. - Kerala"]- ["S. Gunasekaran VS Jayalakshmi Trading Co. , Guntur Town - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Ranju Devi d/o Late Janardhan Pandit VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Ankit S/o. Kiran Padhye vs Avinash S/o Bhaskar Padhye - Bombay"]- ["Nayum Ansari, son of Late Ali Akbar Ansari and Late Jahida Khatoon VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Nitu Kumari @ Kumari Nitu, Daughter of Late Jadu Gope VS Ministry of Labour and Empowerment - Jharkhand"]- ["Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited VS Kumar Akshay Nirala, S/o. Doman Baitha - Jharkhand"]- ["State of Jharkhand VS Navin Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Chitranjan Prasad - Jharkhand"]- ["State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand VS Murlidhar Mishra, son of Late Bhikhan Mishra - Jharkhand"]- ["Chitrakala VS Sathyanarayanan - Madras"]- ["Tinku Kumar Rawani, S/o. Madan Mohan Rawani VS State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Home Department - Jharkhand"]- ["State of Jharkhand VS Anil Kumar Sarkar S/o Late Bandhu Mandal - Jharkhand"]- ["Central Coalfields Limited VS Bini Lal Manjhi, B/o- Late Chetlal Manjhi, S/o Late Loba Manjhi - Jharkhand"]- ["Gaurav Kumar VS State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary - Jharkhand"]- ["Sarita Kumari, wife of Prabhat Kumar VS Omkar Ram, son of Sri Ram Bachan Ram - Jharkhand"]
In legal proceedings, time is of the essence. The phrase inordinate delay in challenging interlocutory order should not be condoned captures a fundamental principle in procedural law. Interlocutory orders—temporary rulings made during litigation, such as stays or injunctions—must typically be challenged promptly to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice is served without undue prejudice to parties. But what happens when a party files a challenge after months or years? Courts, guided by statutes like Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, exercise discretion judiciously, often refusing to condone excessive delays without compelling reasons.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, key case laws, and judicial rationale behind this stance. Whether you're a litigant, lawyer, or simply interested in civil procedure, understanding these principles can help avoid pitfalls in your cases. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Courts possess inherent powers to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown, but this is not a blanket permission. The Limitation Act emphasizes that delays must be explained with genuine, bona fide reasons, supported by evidence. Key tenets include:
These principles prevent the law of limitation from becoming illusory and uphold fairness.
Indian courts have consistently reinforced that inordinate delays in challenging interlocutory orders are not to be condoned lightly. Let's examine pivotal judgments.
In one execution case, the court condoned delay in an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on affidavit reasons. The interlocutory application for delay condonation and stay was allowed, with directions for deposit and disbursement of compensation. This highlights procedural flexibility when justice demands it. New India Assurance Co Ltd VS Manabendra Mahto - 2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1935
Legal Insight: Courts may condone if reasons are furnished adequately, serving the interest of justice.
A stark contrast: A 1374-day delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree was not condoned. The applicant claimed illness but provided no medical evidence. The court emphasized that unsubstantiated long delays should not be condoned routinely, especially when they prejudice the other party. Vatchala VS T. Paari - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 96
Key Takeaway: Concrete proof is essential for substantial delays; otherwise, limitation prevails.
586 Days in Intra-Court Appeal: This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 586 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application... The application was dismissed for lack of sufficient cause under Section 5. Suresh Kumar Tiwary VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1340
10-Year Delay in Writ Petition: In the present case, the respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition after ten years. Thus, such inordinate delay cannot and should not be overlooked. The court refused relief due to laches. State of J&K VS Abdul Rehman Mir - 2021 Supreme(J&K) 141
26-Year Challenge Dismissed: A writ petition challenging a 1981 tribunal order after 26 years was rejected. There is no explanation whatsoever with regard to the inordinate delay... Fraud pleas were deemed specious. K. Shreesha Upadhya S/o. Late Ramachandra Upadhya VS Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Commission Represented by Its Commissioner Chamarajapete - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1563
809 Days in Second Appeal: Delay condonation failed as the explanation was not bona fide. (2010)5 SCC 459 followed. Isha @ Yusuf Khan VS Hazi Rashid - 2017 Supreme(MP) 667
However, exceptions exist where systemic issues justify leniency. In a substitution application filed seven years post-death, delay was condoned: Part of the delay was caused by systematic deficiencies. Courts urged a liberal, pragmatic and a justice oriented approach. Vijay Pal Singh (Dead) VS State Of U. P. - 2020 Supreme(All) 443
These cases illustrate a pattern: Inordinate delays without robust justification are fatal.
Courts adopt a case-by-case analysis:
Advances substantial justice. New India Assurance Co Ltd VS Manabendra Mahto - 2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1935
Factors Against Condonation:
In electricity theft disputes, challenges to old orders were rebuffed: In view of inordinate delay in challenging order dated 19.02.2008, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited VS Sheo Shakti Cement Industries - 2015 Supreme(Jhk) 395
From the precedents:
The doctrine prioritizes timely action to avoid protracted litigation.
To navigate delay condonation:1. File promptly within limitation periods.2. Prepare detailed affidavits with evidence.3. Anticipate scrutiny for delays over 30-90 days.4. Seek interim relief early.
Inordinate delays in challenging interlocutory orders are generally not condoned, as courts prioritize procedural integrity and fairness. While discretion exists under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it demands sufficient cause—especially for prolonged periods. Cases like Vatchala VS T. Paari - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 96 and Suresh Kumar Tiwary VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1340 underscore that unsubstantiated claims fail, protecting against abuse.
Key Takeaways:- Demonstrate bona fide reasons with proof.- Act swiftly to avoid laches.- Justice favors the vigilant, not the negligent.
Stay proactive in litigation. For tailored advice, consult a legal professional.
References:New India Assurance Co Ltd VS Manabendra Mahto - 2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1935Vatchala VS T. Paari - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 96Suresh Kumar Tiwary VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1340State of J&K VS Abdul Rehman Mir - 2021 Supreme(J&K) 141Vijay Pal Singh (Dead) VS State Of U. P. - 2020 Supreme(All) 443K. Shreesha Upadhya S/o. Late Ramachandra Upadhya VS Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Commission Represented by Its Commissioner Chamarajapete - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1563Isha @ Yusuf Khan VS Hazi Rashid - 2017 Supreme(MP) 667Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited VS Sheo Shakti Cement Industries - 2015 Supreme(Jhk) 395
#CondonationOfDelay, #InterlocutoryOrders, #LimitationAct
On a bare reading of the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, what comes out is that not only the delay is inordinate whatever explanation has been offered is not at all satisfactory. ... Condonation of delay is to remain an exception, not the rule. Governmental litigants, no less than private parties, must demonstrate bonafide, sufficient, and cogent cause for delay. Absent such justification, delay ca....
Challenging the order in IA No.833 of 2016, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. ... Hence, we find that the order of the Sub Court in IA No.833 of 2016 is liable to be set aside. The delay is liable to be condoned and the decree dated 28.02.2014 is to be set aside. 9. ... 21.8 There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or ....
The Lower Court failed to appreciate that the delay is not so abnormal and can be condoned for affording opportunity to the petitioner herein to contest and defend his case.5. ... (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. ... of such dismissal order, there occurred a delay of 278 d....
(S) No.4723 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 06.11.2013, by which the compassionate ground of the writ petitioner has been turned down on the ground that the writ petitioner is the married daughter and is not a dependant as per the Scheme, has been ... This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 1577 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay....
(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ... Accepting the explanation and sufficient cause, it is necessary to condone the delay of 280 days / 190 days in preferring the criminal revision application. However, the delay is #HL_ST....
(S) No.3188 of 2024 on 02.02.2024 filed by the State of Jharkhand against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.401 of 2022, wherein, the delay of 259 days was not condoned. 20. ... This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 261 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of th....
(S) No.3188 of 2024 on 02.02.2024 filed by the State of Jharkhand against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.401 of 2022, wherein, the delay of 259 days was not condoned. 19. ... This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 284 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of th....
At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek an order to condone the inordinate delay of 1581 days in representing an unnumbered Application, seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte . ... ORDER : The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 1177 days in filing the First Appeal, challenging the order dated 30.09.2016 made in O.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur....
(S) No.3188 of 2024 on 02.02.2024 filed by the State of Jharkhand against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.401 of 2022, wherein, the delay of 259 days was not condoned. 19. ... We have penned down a detailed order in that case and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning again except to record what are stated to be the facts on which the delay is sought to be condoned. ... This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that t....
(C) No. 8378-8379/2023 on 28.04.2023 against the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 99 of 2021, wherein delay of 534 days in filing the appeal has not been condoned. 17. ... This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 586 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned orde....
In the present case, the respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition after ten years. Thus, such inordinate delay cannot and should not be overlooked.
This inordinate delay is not liable to be condoned. The petitioner has made a substitution application seven years after the death of his father.
7. The facts in the instant case, as unfolded in the pleadings of the parties, would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner’s claim is fraught with delay and laches in challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 01.08.1981 by filing the present writ petition on 07.07.2007 i.e., after a lapse of 26 years. There is no explanation whatsoever with regard to the inordinate delay in challenging the said order. However, the issue of delay is sought to be staved off on the specious pleas of fraud against respondent No. 1.
An inordinate delay can be condoned, if the explanation offered is found to be bonafide and satisfactory, but if the explanation offered is found to be lacking in bona fide, same cannot be condoned even though the delay is short. In the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant is not found bona fide and sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal, hence the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. In the present case, no sufficient reason for delay has been given by the appellant.
The grievance of the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited is to the reduction of amount of loss to the Nigam. However, in view of inordinate delay in challenging order dated 19.02.2008, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge to the said order. As noticed above, in cases of theft the Special Court has been given power and jurisdiction to assess the civil liability, finally.
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
