Patna High Court
The Union Of India vs Mahaprabhu Steels Private Limited on 3 April, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.420 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18457 of 2014
======================================================
1. The Union Of India through the Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, New
Delhi.
2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.
3. The Controller of Stores, East Central Railway, Samastipur, Bihar
4. The Chief Material Manager (Sales), East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.
5. The Deputy Chief Material Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur,
Bihar.
6. The Divisional Material Manager (Admn), East Central Railway,
Samastipur, Bihar.
7. The Assistant Material Manager (Depot), East Central Railway, Samastipur,
Bihar.
8. S.S.E. (C and W) Pataratu, Dhanbad, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Mahaprabhu Steels Private Limited, 135/25/M/2 Girish Ghosh Road,
Belurmath, Howrah-711202, P.S. Belur, Dist. Howrah, West Bengal through
its Director, namely Vikash Modi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Kanak Verma, CGC
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025
2/5
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 03-04-2025
Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2020 for condonation of delay.
There is a delay of about 1051 days in filing L.P.A. No. 420 of
2019.
2. The reasons assigned are in paragraph no. 6, which
reads as under:-
"6. That thereafter the memo of appeal was
drafted and after the same was vetted the letters patent
appeal was filed on 25.3.2019 but without a petition for
condonation of delay. After elevation of Standing Counsel to
the Bench Anil Singh Advocate was re-nominated by the
Railways to appear in the present appeal through letter
dated 4.7.2019.On query been made by the Railways from
the re-nominated Counsel about status of the appeal the
counsel filed inspection slip for inspection of the records in
December 2019 and on inspection he found that certain
defects were found including absence of a petition for
condonation of delay since there was a delay of 2 years and
23 days and directed to be removed by the stamp reporter
and ordered by the Joint Registrar, Lawazima on 14.5.2019
itself Thereafter one set of complete brief and welfare fee
stamp of Rs 45 was filed on 6. 12. 2019 for removal of some
of the defects. The present petition for condonation of delay
was thereafter drafted in such circumstances mentioned
above."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal is on behalf of
Union of India/Railway authorities. The aforementioned reason
is not sufficient to condone the delay of about 1051 days in
filing the LPA No. 420 of 2019.
4. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary decided
in [SLP (C) Diary No.48636 of 2024] on November 29, 2024
read with H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 have laid down the principles in
paragraphs-13 to 17 under what circumstances litigation are to
be dismissed on the ground of delay. Paragraphs-13 to 17 are
read as under:
"13. We are at our wits end to understand why the
High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What
was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all
this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded
the District judiciary as well the High courts that the
concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice oriented
approach", "substantial justice" should not be
employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of
limitation.
14. We are constrained to observe that the High Court
has exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience
and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain
while adjudicating a lis between the parties.
15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025
do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy
promptly.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant
matter which the court must take into consideration
while considering whether the delay should be
condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the
respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their
own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting
the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period
of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his
right to have the matter considered on merits because of
his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be
non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the
case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial
justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical
considerations. While considering the plea for
condonation of delay, the court must not start with the
merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first
ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by
the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient
cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the
other side is equally balanced that the court may bring
into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of
condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is
not merely a technical consideration. The rules of
limitation are based on the principles of sound public
policy and principles of equity. No court should keep
the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a
litigant for an indefinite period of time."
5. Taking note of the aforementioned principles, the
appellants have not made out a case so as to condone the delay
of about 1051 days in filing L.P.A. No. 420 of 2019.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2020 stands dismissed.
L.P.A. No.420 of 2019:
7. Resultantly, L.P.A. No. 420 of 2019 stands dismissed.
8. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
