The High Court upheld the rejection of an I.A. for condoning a 632-day delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal, finding the cause vague and insufficient despite Supreme Court principles.
I.A. No. 01 of 2021 stands rejected; LPA No. 182 of 2021 stands 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 Letters Patent Appeal No.182 of 2021 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2590 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
5 10-05-2024 Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2021
Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2021. There is a delay of about
632 days in filing LPA. Cause for condonation of delay has been stated in para-7 to 11. The aforementioned cause is not sufficient
Patna High Court L.P.A No.182 of 2021(5) dt.10-05-2024 2/2
to condone the enormous delay of 632 days. Cause is also very vaguely stated. The State are well aware of the time limit in filing LPA. They had sufficient time before commencement of COVID-19 for the reasons that cause of action accrued to the appellants on 17.05.2019. Therefore, the reasons for condonation of delay of 632 days is not sufficient so as to condone the delay.
dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/- U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay application for filing the appeal within the limit of six hundred and thirty-two days should be allowed given the insufficiency of the stated cause.
Whether the appeal should stand allowed considering the rejection of the condonation of delay application.
Whether the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) support condoning the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and Another vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR.Referred¶2
AIR 2024 SC 1884 · Who else cites this
State Of Bihar
Sudhir Kumar Jha
Bihar Public Service Commission
P. B. Bajanthri
Alok Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
