2022 (1) TMI 1442 - HC - Indian Laws

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 ... Condonation of inordinate delay of 687 days of filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., [2015 (7) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus, it is evident that while considering the delay condonation application, the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of the period of limitation, a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such, it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part. Thus, it is evident that the sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted deliberately” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously - It is, thus, evident that the ground of communication gap in communicating the impugned order has been made. The order impugned has not been communicated but such ground cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay, coupled with the fact of spread of Covid19 from 18.03.2020 to 25.02.2021 as admittedly, the order impugned was passed on 12.03.2019, the date when there was no spread of Covid-19, rather, the Pandemic Covid-19 has been surfaced only in the month of February-March, 2020 and as such, the ground of spread of Covid-19 from 18.03.2020 to 25.02.2021 cannot be construed to be a sufficient cause, rather, according to our considered view, such statement is misleading one, since one year ago from the time of spread of Covid-19, the impugned order was passed on 12.03.2019. The grounds referred in the delay condonation application cannot be a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 687 days in filing the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Delay Condonation2. Merit of the Claim for Appointment on Compassionate GroundsSummary 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.