Km. Pratima Kumari Verma and another v. Counsel for

has been given for the delay. It was submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out and therefore, the application deserves dismissal.

8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. It would be seen that the order impugned dated 06.03.2025 was passed in presence of the counsel for the State, however, the affidavit indicates that the copy of the order was received by the State when the same was served on 28.03.2025 by the respondent herein. When the State was duly represented, there was no occasion for the appellants to wait for a copy to be served by the respondent seeking compliance of the directions issued by the Court. It is the bounden duty of the counsel representing the State to send copy of the order passed by the Court along with his opinion.

10. It would be seen that after receipt of the copy of the order on

28.03.2025 on being sent by the respondent, despite the limitation for filing appeal being 30 days, the Secretary after passage of over one month on 02.05.2025 decided to seek legal opinion qua the order dated

06.03.2025 whereas, as observed hereinbefore, the order impugned should have been sent to the appellants along with the opinion by the counsel representing the State. Whereafter, the State has proceeded at its leisure in getting the opinion, sanction to file appeal, getting the appeal drafted and ultimately filing the same being sure that delay, irrespective of the reasons for the same, would be condoned by the Court. 3 SPLAD No. 522 of 2025

11. The said attitude has been frowned upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. : (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein, while dealing with the appeals filed on behalf of the State, by its agencies and government bodies, it was inter alia observed as under: “29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

12. This judgment was followed in State of Kerala Vs. Akshaya Jewellers : Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2022, decided on 03.08.2023 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

13. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others: Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, decided on 12.09.2025, after scanning the entire law on the subject, observed as under: "262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law. 4 SPLAD No. 522 of 2025

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law."

14. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically in the context of State appeals, we do not find that the State in the present case has been able to make out a sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

15. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. As a result thereof, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. September 18, 2025 AHA (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

has been given for the delay. It was submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out and therefore, the application deserves dismissal.

8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. It would be seen that the order impugned dated 06.03.2025 was passed in presence of the counsel for the State, however, the affidavit indicates that the copy of the order was received by the State when the same was served on 28.03.2025 by the respondent herein. When the State was duly represented, there was no occasion for the appellants to wait for a copy to be served by the respondent seeking compliance of the directions issued by the Court. It is the bounden duty of the counsel representing the State to send copy of the order passed by the Court along with his opinion.

10. It would be seen that after receipt of the copy of the order on

28.03.2025 on being sent by the respondent, despite the limitation for filing appeal being 30 days, the Secretary after passage of over one month on 02.05.2025 decided to seek legal opinion qua the order dated

06.03.2025 whereas, as observed hereinbefore, the order impugned should have been sent to the appellants along with the opinion by the counsel representing the State. Whereafter, the State has proceeded at its leisure in getting the opinion, sanction to file appeal, getting the appeal drafted and ultimately filing the same being sure that delay, irrespective of the reasons for the same, would be condoned by the Court. 3 SPLAD No. 522 of 2025

11. The said attitude has been frowned upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. : (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein, while dealing with the appeals filed on behalf of the State, by its agencies and government bodies, it was inter alia observed as under: “29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

12. This judgment was followed in State of Kerala Vs. Akshaya Jewellers : Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2022, decided on 03.08.2023 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

13. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others: Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, decided on 12.09.2025, after scanning the entire law on the subject, observed as under: "262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law. 4 SPLAD No. 522 of 2025

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law."

14. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically in the context of State appeals, we do not find that the State in the present case has been able to make out a sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

15. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. As a result thereof, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. September 18, 2025 AHA (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad