Single judge dismissed the first appeal as time barred, refusing to condone the delay despite administrative explanations provided by the appellant State.
The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.4266 of 2009) was rejected, and the appeal was 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA First Appeal No.114 of 2009
====================================================== The State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Appellant/s Versus Shri Manoj Kumar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to SC 12 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ray Shivati Nath Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
6 25-04-2017
the certified copy of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.92 of 1994 was obtained by the Superintendent, MJK Hospital i.e., appellant no.2 on 08.08.2008 and sought advice from the Government Pleader who, in his turn, advised appellant no.2 to file first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2008/31.07.2008 passed in Title Suit No.92 of 1994. Thereafter, the appellant no.2 sought instructions from appellant no.1 vide letter no.642 dated 21.08.2008 on the question of filing of first appeal against the impugned judgment. It has further been
Patna High Court FA No.114 of 2009 (6) dt.25-04-2017
2/4
averred in the aforesaid interlocutory application that matter was processed at different higher levels and subsequently, Law Department gave its opinion to file appeal on 01.07.2009 and thereafter present appeal was filed on 15.07.2009 and therefore, the delay has been caused due to processing of the file at various offices of the Government.
Patna High Court FA No.114 of 2009 (6) dt.25-04-2017
3/4
the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.75 of 1984. He further submits that the learned court below dismissed Title Suit No.92 of 1994 passing judgment and decree dated 16.07.2008/31.07.2008 and thereafter, appellants preferred this appeal near about after one year of passing of the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.92 of 1994. He further submits that the explanations given for delay in filing the present appeal are not sufficient and I.A. No.4266 of 2009 should be dismissed because the present appeal is hopelessly and highly time barred.
Patna High Court FA No.114 of 2009 (6) dt.25-04-2017
4/4
delay. Therefore, I do agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent that present appeal is hopelessly time barred and delay in filing the present appeal is not liable to be condoned and accordingly, I.A. No.4266 of 2009 stands rejected and consequently, the present memo of appeal stands dismissed being time barred.
Shahid/-
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned given the failure to file within the prescribed period.
Whether administrative delays in obtaining certified copies and seeking advice justify the condonation of delay.
State of Bihar & Anr
Shri Manoj Kumar & Ors
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
