Saad Hannan, S/o Late Mahboob Alam, presently R/o Santushti Apartment, Vikrant Chowk, Church Road v. 1. M/s APJ Express, through its Partner, Gurbir Singh, having its office at 3A
Case Details
2025:JHHC:36976 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No.349 of 2025 Saad Hannan, S/o Late Mahboob Alam, presently R/o Santushti Apartment, Vikrant Chowk, Church Road, PO- Church Road, PS- Lower Bazar, Ranchi - 834001, Jharkhand and permanent R/o C/o Timex Service Centre, Beside Angel World School, Kutchi House, Main Road, Ranchi, PO- Lower Bazar, PS- Hindpiri, PIN- 834001 .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s APJ Express, through its Partner, Gurbir Singh, having its office at 3A, P.P. Compound, PO- GPO, PS- Hindpiri, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN- 834001. 2. M/s APJ Properties, through its Partner, Gurbir Singh, having its office at 3A, P.P. Compound, PO- GPO, PS- Hindpiri, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN- 834001. 3. Sardar Gurbir Singh, S/o Late Lakhbir Singh, R/o 3A, P.P. Compound, PO- GPO, PS- Hindpiri, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN- 834001. . ........... .. ... ...Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate For the Resp.(s) : …... 03/ 09.12.2025. I.A. No.10731 of 2025. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid interlocutory application filed for condoning the delay of 291 days in preferring the instant Misc. Appeal. 2. The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure-7) passed by Jharkhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No.02 of 2024 whereby the said appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the learned Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Ranchi vide order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.09 of 2021 has been upheld. 3. The main ground for condonation of delay which has been cited in the said interlocutory application is that after the impugned order was passed on 02.07.2024 in Appeal No.02 of 2024, the appellant filed a petition before the Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Ranchi seeking direction upon the respondents to provide the details/ list of purchasers of the suit property i.e. R. Ali Mall. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the said petition was filed in order to comply with the impugned order and implead the 1 2025:JHHC:36976 purchasers so that they could be included in the measurement of the entire area. 5. It is argued that pursuing the remedy by the appellant before the Regulatory Authority was bona-fide and seeks exclusion of the time in pursuing the said petition before the authority in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 6. One of the banes that afflicts the adjudicatory process resulting in delay in dispensation of justice is the frivolous petitions which the party file with the impunity consuming valuable Court’s hours in complete violation of the provisions as laid down in Civil Procedure Code as well as under the Limitation Act. 7. Here in the present case, the dispute is between the land owners and the developer(s) who had entered into an agreement on 06.09.2004. After the construction was made, the respective parties came into possession of the portion of the constructed area. Both the land owners as well as the developers executed different sale-deeds which is evident from the orders passed by the Regulatory Authority as well as by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.02 of 2024. 8. The appellant moved the Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority and it rejected the petition vide order dated 20.12.2023 and the appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2024. 9. Instead of filing the appeal against the impugned order before this Court, the appellant moved the J.R.E.R.A again seeking list of purchasers of the suit property which was dismissed on 14.08.2024 and appeal was finally filed on 20.06.2025. 10. In order to appreciate the plea of exclusion of time, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, extracted below, Section 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction – (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of the appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, 2 2025:JHHC:36976 where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a count of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. 11. The policy of the section is to afford protection to a litigant against the bar of limitation when he institutes a proceeding which by reason of some technical defect cannot be decided on merits and is dismissed. But when the party seeking the benefit of this section has failed to get the relief in earlier proceedings not because of any defect in jurisdiction or some other cause of like nature, he cannot get the benefit of section 14. Due diligence in good faith needs to be established. The definition of good faith is given under S. 2 (4) of the Limitation Act, which requires the thing to be done with due care and attention. S.14 will not help a party who is guilty of negligence lapse or inaction. 12. This Court is of the view that the appellant could have been said to have pursued bona-fide, if any forum would have been approached under bona- fide mistake against the order passed by the Jharkhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.2 of 2024. No forum was approached against this impugned order, therefore, plea of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. A party in a litigation cannot embark upon a different course of action without assailing the final order, and then turn around with a plea under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. If such an approach is permitted, the Limitation Act will be rendered redundant. 13. Even if the period from 22.07.2024 to 14.08.2024 is excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the instant appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation. 14. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory application being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 15. Consequently, Misc. Appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands
Decision
disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/- Uploaded 11.12.2025. 3