The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the delay condonation application and the appeal which was barred by limitation after a delay of 376 days in filing the appeal and held that the rules of limitation exist to preserve legal remedies within legislatively defined timeframes and the parties seeking condonation of delay must demonstrate a lack of negligence or lack of bona fide intent.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed against the order passed by the trial court wherein the writ petition filed was allowed by which order of recovery had been passed against the alleged excess payment.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order was passed by a learned single judge and it took time to get the certified copy and then it was communicated to the concerned department. Thereafter, the file moved from one table to another which took time to make a decision to file the appeal. Further, it took time to prepare the statement of facts, and time was consumed in preparing documents and typing, etc., and finally, the appeal was filed.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and 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. The court also observed that the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as well as the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not because after the expiry of the period of limitation, a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such, it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part.
The court specified that sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted deliberately” or “remained inactive” and sufficient cause‟ should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned.
The court held that there is no reason assigned for filing the appeal after a delay of 376 days save and except the bald statement that it took some time to get the certified copy and therefore cannot be said to be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the delay condonation application and the instant appeal.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand and ors. vs. Navin Kumar Sinha and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: L.P.A. No.42 of 2021
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Mr. Raunaq Sahay
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
