565-day delay denied; strict statutory limitation bars appeal and condonation of delay cannot be granted by equity

SC held that the HC erred in condoning a 565-day delay, failing to consider the appellant's reply and accepting no reasonable explanation from the respondent State. The Court emphasized that statutory limitation must be applied strictly and equity cannot extend prescribed periods. The HC's exercise of discretion was improper and its order condoning delay was set aside. The application for condonation in the HC is rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are condonation of delay in filing an appeal, examination of the reasonableness of the explanation for delay, and the application of the law of limitation.

Condonation of Delay:
The respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 565 days in filing an appeal. The court noted that the explanation provided for the delay was not reasonable or satisfactory, which is essential for condonation of delay. The reason given for the delay was related to the workload of the Advocate General's office, which was deemed insufficient. Despite opinions against filing the appeal, it was eventually filed without a clear explanation. The court emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously as prescribed by statute, and courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The High Court's discretion in condoning the delay was deemed improper, leading to the appeal succeeding and the impugned order being set aside.

Reasonableness of Explanation for Delay:
The explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal was considered unsatisfactory by the court. The workload of the Advocate General's office was cited as a reason for the delay, which was not deemed reasonable or satisfactory. Despite opinions against filing the appeal, it was eventually filed without a clear explanation, leading to the court's conclusion that no reasonable or satisfactory explanation had been offered for the inordinate delay of 565 days.

Application of Law of Limitation:
The court emphasized the strict application of the law of limitation, stating that it must be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. Courts do not have the power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court in condoning the delay was deemed improper, leading to the appeal succeeding and the application for condonation of delay being rejected. The Miscellaneous First Appeal was dismissed as barred by time.

---