Appeal dismissed after 687-day delay as COVID-19 excuse rejected for pre-pandemic order

The Jharkhand HC dismissed an appeal due to inordinate delay of 687 days in filing. The court held that while litigation should not be rejected on technical grounds of limitation, sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay. The appellant's grounds of communication gap regarding the impugned order and COVID-19 pandemic were insufficient. The court noted the order was passed on 12.03.2019, well before COVID-19 emerged in February-March 2020, making pandemic-related delays irrelevant. The court emphasized that delay condonation requires bona fide conduct and sufficient cause, which were absent here.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay Condonation
2. Merit of the Claim for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds

Summary of Judgment:

1. Delay Condonation:
The intra-court appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 687 days. The appellant sought to condone this delay, citing reasons such as a communication gap, the Covid-19 pandemic, and financial constraints. The Court emphasized that the "Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" and that rules of limitation are meant to ensure that legal remedies are pursued within a legislatively fixed period. The Court highlighted that "lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact" and that "the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness."

The Court found the reasons provided by the appellant insufficient and vague. It noted that the impugned order was passed on 12.03.2019, well before the Covid-19 pandemic, and thus, the pandemic could not be considered a valid reason for the delay. Additionally, the Court found the appellant's claim of financial constraints unconvincing, as it was not detailed how the appellant managed to arrange funds after 687 days. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

2. Merit of the Claim for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds:
Given the dismissal of the delay condonation application, the Court did not proceed to examine the merits of the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. The appeal was dismissed in consequence of the dismissal of the interlocutory application for condonation of delay.

---