The appellate court dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 988-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The court held that the applicants failed to explain the delay and concealed facts, noting they had knowledge of the judgment as the same was produced by their father before the lower authority.
Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sr. No. 5
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
CJ Court
Case : CDLOW No. 11 of 2018
Kabir Shah and others
.....Appellant/Applicant(s)
Through :- Sh. M R Qureshi, Advocate.
v/s
Shambu Nath .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Sh. Abhinav Sharma, Senior Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
01. The applicants seek condonation of 988 days’ delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2015 passed in OWP No. 103/2013 titled Shambu Nath vs. State & ors.
02. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 23.04.2015 decided the petition and remitted the matter back to the Tehsildar, Rajouri in terms of order dated 24.11.2003 of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri with a direction to inquire into the matter and return the findings on the issues formulated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri in the revision. The same was to be concluded within eight weeks after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
03. The applicants submit that they acquired knowledge about the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition only on 31.03.2018 and thereafter sought legal consultation and took steps to file an appeal along with this application seeking condonation of delay. It is contended that the father of the applicants, who was the contesting party in the writ petition, fell
2 CDLOW No. 11 of 2018
seriously ill and the petition was decided during the illness of their father on 23.04.2015, who expired on 02.07.2016. Since the counsel appearing on behalf of their father did not inform the applicants about the pendency of writ petition, as such, they were under the bona fide belief that the writ petition was still pending adjudication.
04. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present application seeking condonation of delay is filed on false statement, as such, the same is required to be rejected. The writ petition, it is submitted, was decided during the lifetime of the applicants’ father on 23.04.2015, who chose not to contest the same and further the applicants all along had the knowledge of the same as is evident from the order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Tehsildar Rajouri in compliance to the judgment dated 23.04.2015.
05. From the order of Tehsildar dated 22.06.2016, it is apparent that the judgment passed in OWP No. 103/2013 dated 23.04.2015 was produced before the Tehsildar, Rajouri by the applicant-Kabir Shah as Attorney Holder of Kala Shah i.e., his father. Both the parties were summoned by the Tehsildar on 16.05.2015 and 23.05.2015 and final order was passed on 22.06.2016. As such, the applicants cannot deny the knowledge of the judgment which has been produced by the applicant-Kala Shah before the Tehsildar Rajouri.
06. It is well settled that discretion to condone the delay has to be judiciously exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. There can be no liberal interpretation of sufficient cause in case where negligence, lack of bona fide or in action or inordinate delay is attributed to the party. As has been held in Basawaraj & anr. vs Spl. Collector Land
3 CDLOW No. 11 of 2018
Acquisition Officer, 2013 (14 SCC 81); P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276. Similarly in Esha Bhattacharjee
Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and
others., (2013) 12 SCC 649, it has been held as under;
07. The averments made in this application are against the record and there is no explanation for inordinate delay has been put forth, rather the applicants have concealed the actual facts. The applicants have failed to explain sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 988 days in filing the appeal despite having the knowledge of the judgment dated 23.04.2015.
08. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the applicants have failed to give any explanation or offer any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 988 days in filing the appeal.
09. This application for condonation of delay is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .
(Sindhu Sharma) (Pankaj Mithal) Judge Chief Justice
JAMMU 03.02.2022 RAM MURTI Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes
RAM MURTI 2022.02.10 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant had sufficient cause to condone a delay of 988 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal despite having knowledge of the impugned judgment.
Whether the applicants can claim bona fide ignorance of the disposal of the writ petition when the judgment was produced before the Tehsildar by the applicant's father.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Basawaraj & anr. vs Spl. Collector Land Acquisition OfficerReferred¶22
Basawaraj & anr. vs Spl. Collector Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (14 SCC 81) · Who else cites this
P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & anr.Referred¶22
P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276 · Who else cites this
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others.Referred¶24
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others., (2013) 12 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Kabir Shah and others
Shambu Nath
Sindhu Sharma
Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
