In Principal Secretary Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Punam Kumari Sharma & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Justice Khatim Reza condoned the delay in filing the memo of appeal in positive exercise of discretion in his judgement dated January 20, 2025. Punam Kumari Sharma from Muzaffarpur filed a Special Leave of Appeal (Civil) on February 14, 2025 in the Supreme Court. It was registered on February 27. The case was last listed on March 7, 2025 before Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and and Prashant Kumar Mishra. It is likely to be listed on April 8, 2024.
In his order, Justice Reza has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123, wherein it has been held as follows:-"It
is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the
court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion
can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of
delay is no matter, acceptability criterion. Sometimes delay of the
shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation
whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned
as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts
the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of
discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such
finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of
discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse.
But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the
delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the
cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court
to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the
lower court." The other three appellants in the case are: Engineer in Chief Road Construction Department, Superintending Engineer Road Construction Department, Muzaffarpur and Executive Engineer Road Construction Department, Muzaffarpur. The two other respondents are: State of Bihar through District Collector, Muzaffapur and the Circle Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur. The case was filed and registered in the High Court on November 27, 2018.
The following cases were relied upon by the counsels during the course of hearing in the High Court:
In Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) decided on April 8, 2024 wherein in paragraph no. 26, the Supreme Court has held that “On a harmonious consideration of the provision of law and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:-
(i). Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii). A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii). The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv). In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v). Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi). Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii). Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii). Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.”
In Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 92, Supreme Court has held as follows:-"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: 'The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the 'sufficient cause' which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature.' Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party."
In Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, Supreme Court has held that “even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute.”
In Municipal Council Ahmed Nagar & anr. vs. Shah Haidar Beg & Ors. reported in 2000 (2) SCC 48, the Supreme Court observed: "The real test for the sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the appellant so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the appellants have moved the writ court, the rights of third party have come into being which should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay.”
No comments:
Post a Comment