The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 313 of 2024 with I.A. No. 6306 of 2024 --------- Md. Nasimuddin, aged about 69 years, s/o Late Nooruddin, resident of Village & P.O.- Hansdiha, P.S.-Hansdiha, District-Dumka (Jharkhand), presently working as Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Millat College, Parsa under the jurisdiction of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka Versus …… Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi 3.The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, Dist.-Ranchi 4.Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, through its Vice Chancellor, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, Dist.-Dumka 5.The Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, District-Dumka 6.Md. Yaseen, s/o Late Ahmad Ali, r/o Village & P.O.-Kaithia, via Basant Roy, P.S. Basant Roy, Dist.-Godda (Jharkhand), presently working as Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Millat College, Parsa, under the jurisdiction of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka 7.Md. Zafir Alam, s/o late Md. Mojib Alam, r/o Mohallah Jabbarchak, P.O. & P.S.-Tatarpur, Dist.-Bhagalpur (Bihar), presently working as Lecturer, Department of Urdu, Millat College, Parsa Under the jurisdiction of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka 8.Dr. Shyam Nath Singh, s/o late Amarnath Singh, c/o Shri J.C. Malhotra at Girija Mukteshwar Colony (near D.M. Residence), P.O. & P.S.- Mayaganj, Dist.-Bhagalpur (Bihar), presently working as Lecturer, Department of Economics, Millat College, Parsa under the jurisdiction of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka. 9.Md. Siddique, s/o late Md. Tamijuddin, r/o village Sinpur, P.O.- Banarchuha, P.S.-Mahagama, District-Godda (Jharkhand), presently working as Lecturer, Department of History, Millat College, Parsa under the jurisdiction of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka 10.Abdul Aziz Khan, s/o late Abdul Halim Khan, Bijlichak, P.O. & P.S.- Tatarpur, District-Bhagalpur (Bihar), presently working as Lecturer, Department of History, Millat College, Parsa under the jurisdiction of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka 11. Md. Shahid Rizwan ‘Wajid’, s/o Dr. Md. Irfan, r/o village & P.O.- Chaknathu, via Ekchari, P.S.-Sanhoula, Dist.-Bhagalpur (Bihar), presently working as Lecturer, Department of Parisian, Millat College, Parsa under the jurisdiction of Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka ……… Opp. Parties 1 CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------
Legal Reasoning
8. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of petition/ appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court is to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis. 9. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). 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 3 period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351. 10. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that: "A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by introduce law, postpone exceptions not recognized by law." its operation, or the 11. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held at paragraph-6 as under: "6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds." 12. While considering the similar issue, this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held as under: "21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.9. (ix) the conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both 4 parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." 13. It is settled position 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 and gross inaction and negligence are the vital factors which should be taken into consideration while considering the question of condonation of delay. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat through Secretary & Anr. Vrs. Kanubhai Kantilal Rana, 2013 SCC Online Guj. 4202, wherein, at pargraph-17, it has been held that "Law having prescribed a fixed period of limitation of 30 days for preferring the appeal, the Government cannot ignore the provisions of the period of limitation as it was never the intention of the legislature that there should be a different period of limitation when the Government is the appellant." 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also dismissed one Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8378-8379/2023 on 28th April, 2023 filed by the State of Jharkhand which was filed against the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.99 of 2021, wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal on the basis of delay of 534 days in filing of the appeal. 15. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also dismissed S.L.P.(C) Diary No.(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. 16. This Court, after taking into consideration the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove as also the explanation furnished in the delay condonation application, is of 5 the view that no valid reason has been shown to condone inordinate delay of 117 days in filing the instant C.M.P. 17. Accordingly, the delay condonation application being I.A. No.6306 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. 18. In consequence thereof, the instant C.M.P. also stands dismissed. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) Rohit/- (Navneet Kumar, J.) 6
Arguments
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Shriwastava, Advocate For the O.Ps. : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ------- 05/ 23.09.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The instant petition is admittedly barred by limitation since as per S.R. dated 02.05.2024, there is delay of 117 days in preferring the petition, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 6306 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay. 3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the C.M.P. has been filed after inordinate delay of 117 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before considering the prayer made in the C.M.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that delay in preferring the C.M.P. may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient. 5. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the Civil Review, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application is that the Civil Review preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for non- prosecution on 23.11.2023 due to non-appearance as learned counsel was on legs in another court & as a result when the aforementioned Civil Review was called, the counsel of the petitioner could not appear before the Hon’ble Court and resultantly Civil Review bearing Civil Review No.65 of 2022 was dismissed for non- prosecution. After the Civil Review preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution, the counsel immediately tried contacting the petitioner so that necessary action for the restoration of the aforesaid Civil Review could be taken, but he could not get in touch with the petitioner over the telephone. Even after several days of trying to reach the petitioner, the counsel could not get in touch 2 with the petitioner, then, as a last recourse, the counsel of the petitioner wrote a letter at the address of the petitioner, giving details of the situation and requested the petitioner to immediately contact him so that the necessary steps for restoration of the aforementioned Civil Review could be taken. After a few weeks the petitioner finally contacted the counsel and informed him that for treatment he had gone to other city and upon returning back he got the letter of the counsel. Inspite of hectic efforts of the counsel, he could not contact the petitioner within time as a result or which he could not file the instant restoration petition in time and the limitation expired on 23.12.2023. As such, the delay in filing the present C.M.P. for restoration is neither intentional nor deliberate and it happened due to compelling circumstances. 6. Heard the petitioner on the point of condonation of delay. 7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Court was of the view that while considering the delay condonation application, the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after 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 inaction and laches on its part.