Court dismisses condonation applications for late appeals, citing lack of cause. Single Judge's extension ruled invalid.

The court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals, citing the lack of sufficient cause as the reasons provided occurred after the limitation period. Additionally, the court held that the learned single Judge did not have jurisdiction to grant time for filing appeals, making the extension of 15 days invalid. Consequently, the appeals were not considered as filed within the extended period granted by the learned single Judge. No costs were awarded in this case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Jurisdiction of the learned single Judge to grant time for filing appeals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals

Background and Arguments:
- The appeals were filed against a common judgment and order dated 15-12-92, but the appeals were not filed until 4-11-94, resulting in a delay of about 1 year and 11 months.
- The applicant, the State of Manipur, argued that the delay was due to several factors including internal communications, meetings, and threats to officials and counsel.
- The applicant cited cases such as AIR 1987 SC 1353, AIR 1988 SC 897, and AIR 1990 SC 2059 to support their claim that the delay should be condoned due to "sufficient cause."

Court's Analysis:
- The court emphasized the importance of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay if the applicant can prove they were prevented from filing the appeal due to sufficient cause.
- The court referred to the Supreme Court's liberal approach in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, which highlighted that a liberal interpretation should be given to "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice.
- However, the court also noted that in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that the cause for delay must arise within the limitation period, and subsequent events cannot justify the delay.

Conclusion:
- The court found that the applicant failed to show any action taken within the prescribed period to file the appeals. The reasons provided, such as threats and refusal by counsel, occurred long after the expiry of the limitation period.
- The court concluded that there was no "sufficient cause" shown for the delay and thus, the delay could not be condoned.

2. Jurisdiction of the Learned Single Judge to Grant Time for Filing Appeals

Background and Arguments:
- The applicant argued that the learned single Judge, while disposing of the review application, granted 15 days' time to file the appeals, and the appeals were filed within this period.
- The respondent's counsel argued that the learned single Judge did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time for filing an appeal beyond the statutory period.

Court's Analysis:
- The court noted that under the rules, an appeal must be filed within one month from the date of the judgment, and any delay can only be condoned by the appellate court upon showing sufficient cause.
- The court stated that the learned single Judge, who passed the impugned judgment, did not have the jurisdiction to grant time for filing an appeal. The appellate court, in this case, a Division Bench, is the competent authority to condone the delay.
- The court referred to AIR 1987 SC 533, emphasizing that even a correct decision by an incompetent forum is null and void.

Conclusion:
- The court held that the learned single Judge's grant of 15 days' time for filing the appeals was beyond his jurisdiction and thus, invalid.
- Consequently, the argument that the appeals were filed within the extended period granted by the learned single Judge was rejected.

Final Judgment:
- The applications for condonation of delay were dismissed due to the lack of sufficient cause and the jurisdictional incompetence of the learned single Judge to extend the filing period.
- No order as to costs was made in the facts and circumstances of the cases.

---