High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1334/2015dismissed

Bhag Ram v. State Of Haryana & ANR

2026-01-21Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel6 pages

!"#$%"&'# ())* !"#$+,-# % .())* ( /0 ) 11 0

! "

# #$ %%%%% 02)3 4 -5 & '

(

' (

. /.$&-0$-&$ ( 1. 2(

( 3 1.

2( &4-,$--+ #$5 6 $ 7 .

* +,- .

*8 (. 9.

! ( $-&$ '

3. 8 9.

( 3.'

(7 . .. 8 ! ( $-&;

(

(39.

1. $-&03 (/ 8 ( .. 8 8 )

(/ 7 .

(< ( =.( +,-

(. 4 #

8 .

( #$ '

( ; > .

. )(* 0 >8.

(

/. 3.

$+-$$-$;? 8. ) "8.

As a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the following principles of law emerge:

I. A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice. The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for

: condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. An applicant (seeking condonation of delay) has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea. In case such reason(s) is not scrutable, a Court would well be within its discretion to decline such plea (for condonation of delay). In other words, inexplicable delay ought not to be condoned.

II.A Court ought to grant an application seeking condonation of delay when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to such applicant and/or such delay has occurred on account of circumstances beyond reasonable control of such applicant.

III.It is not the length of delay (sought to be condoned) but explanation thereof which is relevant for consideration by a Court. IV. Law of limitation does not require an applicant (seeking condonation of delay) to furnish an exhaustive explanation on 'day today basis' for such delay. A Court while dealing with a plea for condonation of delay need not undertake such a pedantic approach.

V.In appropriate cases, a Court may consider imposing costs while granting an application for condonation of delay. However, the quantification of costs so imposed, must reflect the same being commensurate to the lis in issue as also attending circumstances therein. VI. The factum; of nonapplicant(s) or even strangers having altered their position(s) relying upon the applicant not having filed an appeal/revision etc. within stipulated time and resultant effects thereof; will indubitably be a pertinent factor for consideration of a plea for condonation of delay. VII.A plea for condonation of delay by the State as also its instrumentalities has to be accorded a more liberal approach since the machinery involved in their working is impersonal in nature & hidden factors working therein cannot be given a complete amiss.

VIII.The discretion of a Court, while considering a plea for condonation of delay, will be exercised in view of peculiar facts/circumstances of an individual case. It is neither prudent nor feasible to fix any exhaustive guidelines for exercising such judicial discretion. On the contrary, it would be perilous to lay down such general criteria for governing such discretion. Needless to emphasize that exercise of such judicial discretion/power ought to be within the four corners of well settled principles of justice, good conscience and fair play."

A( .

!"" # "# $ % & '

() !

# ))( $* !

) +

, - (.

: "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: xxx xxx xxx xxx vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

A( .

.. "# $ / 0!1 2

) +

(. "171. The next submission that was advanced on behalf of the respondents herein is that, in matters pertaining to condonation of delay, a certain degree of leeway ought to be accorded to the Government and Public Authorities owing to the innate omplexities in the way the State apparatus functions. The argument is that due to the inherent bureaucracy and involvement of various departments of different hierarchy which are endemic to the functioning of the State and its instrumentalities, unavoidable delays tend to crop up even without any deliberate intention, and thus, the courts ought to be pragmatic and liberal where the State or any of its instrumentalities is seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal or application, as the case may be. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in 4.15 67 %& ()$*(8! &99( 21)reported in : ."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

212. The law as it presently stands, post the decision of Postmaster General (supra), is unambiguous and clear. Condonation of delay is to remain an exception, not the rule. Governmental litigants, no less than private parties, must demonstrate bona fide, sufficient, and cogent cause for delay. Absent such justification, delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground of the identity of the applicant. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

218. However, equally important to note is that wherever, any explanation is sought to be given on account of bureaucratic lethargy and inherent complexities of governmental decision making, the same more often than not would invariably always is an

: "excuse", as experience has shown us, depicted from a long line of decisions of this Court. It is at this stage, where the decision of Postmaster General (supra) assumes significance. It seeks to convey the messages, that court should not be agnostic, to how the State or its instrumentalities, often tend to take the recourse of condonation of delay in a casual manner." B 3 +,-

"That the appellant could to know regarding the acquittal only in the month of December, 2012. The appellant thereafter has approached to the State Counsel to file the appeal or revision before the Hon'ble High Court. The appellant was waiting that appeal/ revision will be filed by the State Government before the Hon'ble High Court. The appellant came in the Hon'ble High Court in the month of December, 2014 and found that по appeal has been filed. The appellant thereafter has filed in the month of January, 2015. The registry raised the objection and thereafter the revision has again been filed. In all this process the above mentioned delay has been occurred. The delay is not intentional and deliberate but due to the reason explained above."

, . ()

8 (

. ( C

( . (

(

bona fide

(

8 )

. .

8 (

# . .

. 9.

8 (8/.

+,-

' ( C

( (.

:* .

. 8 . .

8 ..

C . (

C ,& ' C

* 8

. ( ( ( C

. (

"&'#

+ '

5CRM1218320156 *

* ( 8

31 05 1.$& $-$@ Naveen D * # D ( #