Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Gambhira Devi & Ors vs Promod Mahato & Ors. ... Opp. Parties on 31 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
CMP No. 285 of 2023
Smt. Gambhira Devi & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Promod Mahato & Ors. ... Opp. Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Nilesh , Adv.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sankalp Goswami , Adv.
06 / 31.01.2025
I.A. no. 861 of 2024
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for
condonation of delay of 237 days. Drawing attention of this court to
para 4 of the supplementary affidavit, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was undergoing acute
financial hardship, hence, he could not arrange money to take steps
for filing this civil miscellaneous petition, hence, the civil
miscellaneous petition could not be filed within the stipulated time. It
is further submitted that the fact that the petitioner was undergoing
acute financial hardship, is even admitted by the opp. parties because
though the opp. parties have filed a written reply but the opp. party
has not controverted that the petitioner was undergoing acute
financial hardship at the relevant time. It is next submitted that to do
substantial justice, the delay is required to be condoned.
Learned counsel for the opp. parties relies upon the order of
the Division Bench of this Court in I.A. no. 5437 of 2016 arising out of
LPA No. 209 of 2016, and submits that in that case, the Division Bench
of this Court, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of B. Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy
reported in (2012) 12 SCC 693, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court of
India reiterated the settled principle of law that to condone the delay,
discretion should be based not on length of delay but on sufficient
and satisfactory explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner next
relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director and Ors. vs. Sunita Kumari & Anr. reported in
2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1549 wherein, the Division Bench of this
Court reiterated the settled principle of law that when a litigant does
not act with bona fide motive and at the same time, due to inaction
and laches on its part, the period of limitation for filing the appeal
expires, such lack of bona fide motive and gross inaction and
negligence are the vital factors which should be taken into
consideration while considering the question of condonation of delay.
Hence, it is submitted that the delay in filing this civil miscellaneous
petition ought not be condoned and this civil miscellaneous petition
be dismissed being barred by limitation.
Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner seeks condonation of delay on the ground that
at the relevant period of time, the petitioner was undergoing acute
financial hardship. As is rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the opp. Party, in not controverting the said contention
of the petitioner, has by default, admitted the same and in view of the
admitted fact that the petitioner was undergoing acute financial
hardship, during the relevant time, this Court is of the considered
view that in order to do substantial justice, this is a fit case where the
delay of 237 days in filing this civil miscellaneous petition be
condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 237 days in filing this civil
miscellaneous petition is condoned.
This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Learned counsel for the opp. parties prays for time to file
counter affidavit.
Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance.
List this case after six weeks.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
