Dismissed¶20

Uday Kumar Sinha v. National Institute of Technology through Its Registrar

Jharkhand HC5 Dec 2025C.Rev./106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 of the Limitation Act; review petition filed 23.12.2018 against order dated 09.09.2015 in L.P.A. No. 263 of 2009; 1171 days delay unexplained; medical certificate dated 16.12.2015 of Dr. Ajit Singh rejected; I.A. No. 9859 of 2022 dismissed; review petition dismissed as time barred; luxury litigation; Uday Kumar Sinha v. NIT Jamshedpur; High Court of Jharkhand, Division Bench, 05.12.2025; 2025:JHHC:36533-DB.

What did the court decide?

The medical certificate dated 16.12.2015 issued by Dr. Ajit Singh cannot be accepted, because the review petition was filed for the first time only on 23.12.2018, i.e., more than three years after issuance of the certificate. ¶18

Uday Kumar Sinha Vs National Institute of Technology through Its Registrar — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1171 days in filing the review petition, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶17

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

No cause, much less sufficient cause, was shown by the petitioner for not filing the review petition within time; the delay of 1171 days went unexplained.

¶19

Key takeaways

I.A. No. 9859 of 2022 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay is ordered to be dismissed.ratio¶19
Consequently, the review petition (Civil Review No. 106 of 2018) is dismissed as time barred.ratio¶20
Observation that the instant review petition is a 'luxury litigation' initiated on behalf of the petitioner.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Division Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.), decision dated 05.12.2025 [2025:JHHC:36533-DB], in I.A. No. 9859 of 2022 in/and Civil Review No. 106 of 2018 (Uday Kumar Sinha v. National Institute of Technology (NIT) Jamshedpur and others). The review petition, filed on 23.12.2018 seeking review of the order dated 09.09.2015 passed in L.P.A. No. 263 of 2009, was not accompanied by any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. I.A. No. 9859 of 2022, filed on 20.10.2022, sought condonation of 1171 days' delay solely on the ground of medical exigency (treatment of jaundice), supported only by a medical certificate of Dr. Ajit Singh dated 16.12.2015 — issued more than three years before the review petition was first filed. Holding that no cause, much less sufficient cause, was shown and that the delay of 1171 days had gone unexplained, the Court dismissed the I.A. and consequently dismissed the review petition as time barred, characterising it as a 'luxury litigation'.

¶1

2025:JHHC:36533-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

I.A. No. 9859 of 2022

¶4

In/and

¶5

Civil Review No. 106 of 2018

¶6

Uday Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Jagdish Sinha, aged about 53 years, resident of Qr. NBo. C-II, NIT Campus, R.I.T. P.O & P.S: RIT, District Seraikela Kharswan ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

National Institute of Technology (NIT) Jamshedpur having its Registered Office at NIT Campus, P.O. & P.S.:- Regional Institute of Technology, Dist: Seraikla, Kharswan

¶9

The Chairman, Board of Governance, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Adityapur, P.O+P.S- R.I.T, Town, Jamshedpur. Dist: Seraikela, Kharswan.

¶10

The Director, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Adityapur, Jamshedpur Town, Jamshedpur , P.O & P.S: R.I.T. Jamshedpur, Dist: Seraikela, Kharswan. … … ... Opp. Parties

¶11

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Mr. Pratyush, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate ---------

¶13

09/Dated: 05.12.2025

¶14

1. Clearly, this instant review petition is a luxury litigation initiated on behalf of the petitioner. This is evident from the fact that this review petition was filed on 23.12.2018 seeking review of the order dated 09.09.2015 passed in L.P.A. No. 263 of 2009 and yet the application for review was not accompanied by a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Actually, this fact had to be pointed out to the petitioner by the Registry of this Court.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

2025:JHHC:36533-DB

¶17

1. It is eventually on 20.10.2022 that an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 9859 of 2022 came to be filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that too, seeking condonation of 1171 days delay in filing of the review petition. The only ground given in the application is that due to medical exigency and for treatment of jaundice the appellant was in his village and could not file the review petition. In support of such contention, a medical certificate issued by one Dr. Ajit Singh has been appended which is dated 16.12.2015.

¶18

1. Apart from that certificate, there is no other certificate appended by the petitioner. Obviously such certificate cannot be accepted given the fact that the review petition for the first time came to be filed only on 23.12.2018, i.e., after more than three years of the issuance of the certificate by the Doctor.

¶19

1. There is no cause, much less sufficient cause, shown by the petitioner for not filing the review petition within the time frame and the delay of 1171 days in filing of the review petition has gone unexplained. Consequently, the application being I.A. No. 9859 of 2022 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is ordered to be dismissed.

¶20

1. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed as time barred.

¶21

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶22

NAFR MM/Vedanti 05/12/2025 Cp.02 Uploaded on 08.12.2025

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Uday Kumar Sinha v. National Institute of Technology through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Kumar Sinha v. National Institute of Technology through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Bhushan Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Etwa Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uma Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Thro Its Commissioner Vs Devendra Singh Rana

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs Sh. Bhrigu Nandan Sharma

Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary