Ten civil revision applications by Bihar departments challenging arbitration tribunal awards were filed after delays of eight months to over three years. The court found no sufficient cause beyond file movement dates and clerical errors, dismissed all limitation petitions and consequently dismissed all ten civil revisions.
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 CIVIL REVISION No.9 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Rambriksha Singh, Partner Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh Son of Late Ram Briksha Singh, Resident of Jaiprakash Nagar, Karma Road, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 203 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Jai Maa Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd. Managing Director Sri Lalit Kumar Singh S/o Bhishm Narayan Singh R/o Devdha, P.S. - Deep Nagar, Distt. - Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 208 of 2017
======================================================
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 2/66
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Birendra Prasad Singh through its working partner Mr. Devesh Kumar, Son of Sri Birendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village + P.O. - Barki Mahuli Via Takia Bazar, P.S. - Karahgar, District - Rohtas Sasaram, Correspondence Address - Mohalla - New Bank Colony, Faizal Ganj, Kaushalya Kutir, P.O.+ P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas Sasaram.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 225 of 2017
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Shri Shailendra Kumar Akela son of Late Keshwar Prasad resident of Quamruddinganj, P.O.- Biharsharif, P.S.- Laheri, Muradpur, District- Nalanda Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 258 of 2017
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 3/66
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 5 of 2018
Versus
M/s Shaligram Singh prop. Sri Shaligram Singh, S/o Late Jadunandan Singh R/o Deokali, P.S. Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 194 of 2018
======================================================
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 4/66
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Dilip Kumar Munka, son of Late Navrang Lal Munka, resident of Ward No. 16, PO+PS Naugachia, Distt. Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 9 of 2019
======================================================
The Deputy Director, Quality Control Division, Dehri, Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Komal Construction Chhawani Mohalla Ward No. 1 Bhabhua (Kaimur) through its Partner Komal Singh Son of late Bachnu Singh Resident of Village Ward No. 1 Chhawani Mohalla, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur,
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 20 of 2019
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 5/66
M/s Umesh Kumar and Com, Prop. Sri Umesh Kumar Roy Son of Raja Prasad Roy Resident of Ranjan Path, Near Basudeo Palace, Bailey Road, P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 21 of 2019
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Saran construction, Prop. Sri Triguna Nand Singh S/o Late Baldeo Singh R/O Laxmipur, Kakadia P.S- Dighwara, Saran at Chapra
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance : (In CIVIL REVISION No. 9 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.B. Prasad Yadav, AAG-11 Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11 Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 203 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13 Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 208 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13 For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 225 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13 For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 6/66
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 258 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13 For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 5 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11 Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 194 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ac To Aag 4 For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 9 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to Aag 4 For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ram Nath Singh Yadav, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 20 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11 Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate (In CIVIL REVISION No. 21 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11 Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA CAV ORDER
32 01-05-2025
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG-11, Mr.
Amit Prakash, GA-13 assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA13, Mr. Sanjay Kumar AC to AAG-4 and Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior advocate, Mr. Manish Sahay, Mr. Ramnath Singh Yadav, learned counsels for the opposite parties.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 7/66
the separate Awards passed on different dates by the Bihar Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arbitration Tribunal’) in different Reference Cases.
Re:- I.A. No. 161 of 2017 in C.R. No. 09 of 2017
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 8/66
Secretary of the Arbitration Tribunal on 25.05.2014.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 9/66
the office of Executive Engineer on 03.09.2014. The Executive Engineer was again directed on 13.09.2014 to provide the grounds of revision against the Award under challenge. It is further contended that the Executive Engineer requested to provide the allotment of fund vide letter no. 90 dated 16.01.2015. The then Engineer-in-Chief vide letter dated 29.01.2015 asked to provide the Award along with claim petition and counter affidavit filed in Reference case which was provided on 23.02.2015 and thereafter file of this case was sent to the Law Department on 14.05.2015 which was returned on 10.07.2015 with some queries. The queries of the Law Department was explained by the Executive Engineer vide letter no. 1928 dated 03.11.2015 which was received in the department on 26.11.2015. It is further pleaded that vide letter no. 1747 dated 08.03.2016, the Executive Engineer was directed to provide certified copy of Award which was provided by him vide letter dated 11.03.2016 and thereafter on 29.03.2016 the file of this case was again sent to the Law Department but again the file was returned on 22.04.2016 with further queries. The said file was produced on 18.05.2016 before the Secretary of the Department to endorse the file to the Law Department.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 10/66
Department approved to file revision against the Award. The Executive Engineer was directed to provide statement of facts for filing the Revision Application. Whereafter Executive Engineer was provided statement of facts by the Road Construction Department and thereafter on 11.11.2016, the said file was again sent to Law Department for filing revision application against the Award. The said file was sent by the Law Department to the office of the Advocate General for filing Revision petition. It was marked to AAG-11 for filing Revision Application thereafter, the Revision Application as well as interlocutory application for condoning the delay in filing the application was filed on 12.01.2017 before this Court.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 11/66
Court has also referred the case of State of Manipur & Ors. Vs. Koting Lamkang reported in (2019) 10 SCC 408 and quoted paragraph nos. 7 & 8 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
“7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned.
8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by the State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected.”
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 12/66
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 13/66
send the demand letter to the Superintending Engineer in prescribed format on 06.09.2014. It is further contended that Superintending Engineer vide its letter dated 29.09.2014 has directed the Executive Engineer to send an inquiry report in prescribed format and details of calculation of interest so that further action be taken for obtaining approval of Law Department and for allotment of fund. Again, the Superintending Engineer had requested the then Engineer-inChief to sanction the amount, as the enquiry report in prescribed format is being sent for obtaining approval of Law Department. It is further submitted that after the repeated request made by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, the funds has not been allocated for payment to the opposite party in terms of the Award. Lastly, the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 01.01.2015, requested the Secretary of Department to make allotment of fund so that payment could be made to the opposite party. Even thereafter, no payment was made to the opposite party for want of allotment of fund by the higher authority of the department. It is further contended that after great persuasion by the opposite party, the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 11.05.2016 had requested the Engineer in-Chief to make allotment of required fund. Despite the request for
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 14/66
allotment of fund, the Engineer in-Chief vide letter dated 09.06.2016 had directed the Executive Engineer to file revision application before this Court with a petition for condonation of delay, if the grounds for the same exists. If no revision application could be filed, then send a reasoned and clear report from the same.
Re:- I.A. No. 7500 of 2017 in C.R. No. 203 of 2017.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 15/66
October, 2017 against the Award dated 01.03.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 115 of 2012 by the learned Arbitration Tribunal.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 16/66
Revision Application to file Revision Application against the Award dated 01.03.2016. The then Superintending Engineer again directed the Executive Engineer on 13.05.2016 to make available grounds to file revision application against the said Award. In compliance of the said letter dated 13.05.2016, the Executive Engineer made available the grounds to the Superintending Engineer. After perusing said grounds, it was found unsatisfactory and, as such, the Executive Engineer was directed to make available grounds after getting it drafted by empaneled Advocate of the department vide letter dated 25.05.2016. It is further contended that the entire file of the case as well as copy of the Award dated 01.03.2016 was made available to the Panel Advocate of the Department, who received the same on 25.05.2016. It is further alleged that the Advocate of the department kept the file pending for long and did not return the same after drafting of grounds of revision and, as such vide letters dated 03.11.2016, 18.01.2017, 30.01.2017, 13.02.2017, 27.02.2017 and 15.04.2017, the Executive Engineer requested him to return the file. On 30.04.2017, the concerned Lawyer returned the file along with grounds of Revision Application as well as limitation petition and stay petition. It is further contended that after receiving the said file, the Executive
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 17/66
Engineer sent the said file to the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 31.07.2017. The Superintending Engineer sent the said file to the Chief Engineer, who, in turn, sent the said file to the Engineer in-Chief cum-Additional Engineer cum- Special Secretary Road Construction Department on 18.08.2017 for its approval. On 11.09.2017, the Engineer in-Chief approved for filing Revision application against the said Award and sent the file to the Law Department on 15.09.2017. On the same day, Law Department gave the opinion for filing Revision Application against the said Award and the file was sent to the learned Advocate General on 18.09.2017 which was received in the office of learned Advocate General on 19.09.2017. It is further contended that the learned Advocate General marked the file to the concerned Law Officer for filing Revision Application on 20.09.2017. Thereafter, the concerned Law Officer filed instant Revision Application on 11.10.2017 along with limitation petition as well as stay petition. It is submitted that there is no deliberate or willful delay or laches on the part of the petitioners in filing the instant revision application rather the delay caused on account of procedural formalities.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 18/66
of 2017. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party submitted that the Revision Application has been filed on 11.10.2017 against the Award dated 01.03.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 115 of 2012. The said Award was passed on 01.03.2016 in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner who had knowledge about the passing of the Award. It is further submitted that the explanation for condonation of huge delay does not contain acceptable and plausible reason. It appears from the pleading of the limitation petition that the petitioners have failed to explain the delay. They have also failed to give plausible and acceptable reason for the delay in filing the Revision application. It is admitted fact that the Award was pronounced in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioners. The instant revision application has been filed on 11.10.2017 after 477 days (1 year 3 months 22 days). The petitioner has failed to give sufficient explanation for condonation of delay in filing the instant Civil Revision application. It is apparent from the limitation petition, the Award dated 01.03.2016 was communicated through Secretary of the Arbitration Tribunal which was received on 17.03.2016. The file of this instant case was sent to the empaneled Advocate on 25.05.2016 and on the same day he received the file but the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 19/66
instant revision application has been filed on 11.10.2017. It is further submitted that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. It is also submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have already held that “The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few” . It is held that the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. It is further submitted that the petitioner again acted leisurely and claim condonation of delay as a matter of fact only because the petitioners are the officers of the Government department. The petition for condonation of delay is completely devoid of any merit without any plausible explanation.
Re: I.A. No. 7717 of 2017 in Civil Revision No. 208
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 20/66
of 2017
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 21/66
dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 152 of 2014. It was brought to the notice to the empaneled Advocate by the Executive Engineer to prepare statement of facts to file revision application against the said Award. It is contended that the concerned Advocate of the Department prepared the statement of facts and returned the file to the Executive Engineer on 28.07.2017, who, in turn, sent the statement of facts to the Superintending Engineer on 31.07.2017 for its approval. The Superintending Engineer thereafter forwarded the statement of facts to the Chief Engineer, Patna for approval. The Chief Engineer forwarded the statement of facts to the Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 18.08.2017 for its approval. The Engineer-inChief gave an approval on 11.09.2017 and the file was then sent to the Law Department which was received there on 15.09.2017. The Law Department after giving its approval on 15.09.2017 sent the file to the learned Advocate General on 18.09.2017 for filing Civil Revision. Thereafter, the present revision application along with limitation petition and stay petition was filed on 17.10.2017. There is no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioners, rather, some delay has occurred in completing
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 22/66
necessary formalities.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 23/66
about filing of the present revision application within limitation period. There is no plausible explanation for delay in the said limitation petition. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the limitation petition may be dismissed for the ends of justice.
I.A. No. 9374 of 2017 in Civil Revision No. 258 of
2017
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 24/66
file at different stages. It is contended that on 14.09.2016, the Superintending Engineer sent the file to the Chief Engineer for guidelines in view of letter dated 05.09.2016 of Executive Engineer and in turn, the Engineer-in-Chief vide letter dated 23.09.2016 sent the file to the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer sent the file to the panel Advocate of the Department for preparing the ground of appeal/revision for filing revision application. The said panel lawyer returned the file to the Executive Engineer on 03.10.2016 along with the grounds of revision application. The Executive Engineer sent the drafted copy of ground for revision to the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 14.10.2016 for filing the revision application before this Court. The approval for filing of revision application was sought by the Superintending Engineer on 24.10.2017 by the Chief Engineer. On 15.12.2016, the Chief Engineer directed the Executive Engineer to obtain the certified copy of the impugned Award and send the same. In compliance of the said direction, the Executive Engineer applied requisition for obtaining certified copy of the said Award on 06.12.2016. The said Award was supplied on 07.12.2016. It is further pleaded that due to procedural formalities, the limitation period for filing of revision application has elapsed. The Executive
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 25/66
Engineer sent the file along with limitation petition to the Superintending Engineer on 07.11.2017, who sent the file to the Chief Engineer on 11.11.2017. The Chief Engineer sent the file to Engineer-in-Chief for approval who gave the approval on 07.12.2017 and on the same day, the file was sent to the Principal Secretary of the Department. The Principal Secretary forwarded the file to the Law Department for filing revision on the same day. Thereafter, the said file was sent to the office of the learned Advocate General on 13.12.2017. The learned Advocate General marked the file to the concerned Law Officer for filing revision application on 15.12.2017. Soon thereafter, the revision application along with limitation and stay petition was filed on 20th December, 2017. It is further contended that there is no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioners rather the delay has occurred due to some necessary official formalities.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 26/66
plausible and acceptable explanation of delay for filing the instant revision application. It is further submitted that all the authorities concerned were aware that the limitation period for filing this revision application was only three months from the date on which the Award is made, despite that after about eight (8) months, i.e. on 15.12.2016, the Chief Engineer directed the Executive Engineer to obtain the certified copy for filing the civil revision. The limitation period was expired on 17.11.2016. It is apparent from the limitation application that the petitioners failed to furnish acceptable and cogent explanation for delay in filing the revision application. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this limitation petition is fit to be dismissed for the ends of justice.
Re: I.A. No. 8105 of 2017 in Civil Revision No. 225
of 2017
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 27/66
interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum with effect from 13.09.2009 till 12.09.2012 over an amount of Rs. 2,45,777/only as also for cost was allowed.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 28/66
Thereafter, the Chief Engineer directed for filing revision application against the Award dated 21.08.2014 as well as order passed in Review case no. 4 of 2015 dated 27.04.2016. On the request of the Executive Engineer, the empaneled Advocate prepared grounds of revision for filing civil revision. The same was forwarded to Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer sent the file to Chief Engineer on 07.12.2016 for its approval. It is further contended that the Chief Engineer directed Executive Engineer on 29.12.2016 to obtain certified copy of Award dated 21.08.2014 and order dated 27.04.2016 passed in the aforesaid review petition. However, the Executive Engineer superannuated from his service on 31.01.2017 and the present Executive Engineer took charge on 23.02.2017. It is also pleaded that after the knowledge of the said matter, the present Executive Engineer obtained certified copy from Arbitration Tribunal and sent it to Superintending Engineer on 13.07.2007. The Chief Engineer sent the file to Engineer-in-Chief on 14.07.2017 for its approval, who, in turn, sent the file to Principal Secretary of the Department on 19.07.2017. The Principal Secretary made some query and returned the file which was again submitted on 04.10.2017. The Principal Secretary gave approval on 05.10.2017 and sent it to the Law
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 29/66
Department for opinion/advice. The Law Department gave permission to file revision application and sent it to the office of learned Advocate General on 10.10.2017. Soon thereafter, on 09.11.2017, the aforesaid revision application was filed. There is no deliberate or willful delay or laches on the part of the petitioners in filing the revision application rather the delay has been caused on account of procedural formalities and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the civil revision application.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 30/66
is further pleaded that the petitioners have not filed any paper/documents in support of their averments. It is submitted that the petitioners themselves admit that on 08.09.2014, they have got knowledge about the Award dated 21.08.2014 and despite that they applied for obtaining certified copy of the Award on 10.07.2017 which was supplied to them on 13.07.2017 and the revision application has been filed on 09.11.2017 before this Court. It is apparent from the pleadings of the petitioners that they were fully aware about the Award dated 21.08.2014. In such view of the matter, the petitioners have failed to furnish acceptable and cogent explanation for delay in filing the civil revision application. The opposite party has relied upon the decision in the case of Postmaster General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. Reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and in the case of State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422. It is vehemently submitted that the State and its officers cannot be treated differently while considering the prayer for condonation of delay and prayed for dismissal of the limitation petition.
Re: I.A. No. 201 of 2018 in C.R. No. 05 of 2018
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 31/66
days in filing the instant Civil Revision application.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 32/66
statement of facts and grounds for Civil Revision and in compliance of the same, the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 10.02.2017 and submitted the formal draft prepared by Panel Advocate to the Superintending Engineer on 10.02.2017. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer issued letter dated 08.03.2017 with a direction to the Superintending Engineer to make available the statement of facts and grounds of Revision application. The Superintending Engineer issued letter dated 09.03.2017 to the Executive Engineer to submit the statement of facts and grounds as required. The Executive Engineer sent a letter to the Superintending Engineer on 18.03.2017 whereby the Executive Engineer has replied that the required certified copy of the Award has already been submitted in the department. The Engineer-in-Chief- cum- Special Secretary issued the letter dated 28.04.2017 to the Chief Engineer, South Bihar with specific direction to make available the grounds of revision and application for condonation of delay. A reminder was also sent by the Engineer-in-Chief to the Chief Engineer, South Bihar on 25.07.2017. It is further contended that after receiving the statement of facts and grounds for filing Civil Revision application, the same was sent for approval. The Engineer-in-Chief approved the statement of facts and grounds
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 33/66
for filing the Civil Revision and file was sent to the Law Department on 13.10.2017 for filing the Civil Revision application. The Law Department sent the file to the office of the learned Advocate General, Bihar, on 17.10.2017 and subsequently the present case was allotted to the learned AAG11. Thereafter, the present Civil Revision application has been filed on 09.01.2018. It is further contended that there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioner rather the same has occurred due to lack of knowledge of the Award as well as due to procedural formalities.
Re: I.A. No. 9684 of 2018 in C.R. No. 194 of 2018
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 34/66
30.11.2016 (90 days from the date of Award).
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 35/66
of the Advocate’s clerk delay has been caused in filing the Civil Revision application and there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioners in filing the instant Civil Revision application.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 36/66
present Civil Revision application.
Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in Civil Revision No. 9 of
2019
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 37/66
was sent to the learned Advocate General and on his advice for filing Civil Revision Application, against the said Award, the file was allotted to the AAG-4 on 30.03.2017. It is further contended that the file was locked in the Almirah and the Advocate’s Clerk inadvertently kept the file alongwith other files in a bundle. The said file got tied up with other files and only in the month of September, 2018, when officer of the department approached the office of AAG-4, then on search, the file was located on 28.09.2018. Thereafter, the said file along with statement of facts was allotted to Assistant Counsel on 03.10.2018 for preparing Revision Petition and limitation petition and soon thereafter, revision application was drafted finally on 26.10.2018 the brief became ready for oath. A letter was sent to the Department for deputing the authorised person to swear the affidavit of the revision application. Lastly on 15.01.2019, the present revision application alongwith limitation petition has been filed. It is further case of the petitioners that due to mistake of the Advocate’s clerk, some delay has caused in filing this revision application and there is no intentional and deliberate laches on the part of the petitioners.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 38/66
appeared and filed rejoinder to the limitation petition and vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of huge delay of 599 days (wrongly noted as 693 days). It is contended that the explanation for condonation of delay does not contain any acceptable and plausible reason. It is further contended that it is admitted by the petitioners that the Award dated 22.11.2016 was received by the Section Officer on 06.12.2016 itself. The requisition for obtaining certified copy of Award dated 22.11.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 110 of 2011 was filed on 04.01.2019 which was ready on the same day i.e. 04.01.2019, despite the knowledge of the Award and the same was received on 06.12.2016. It is apparent from the certified copy of the Award that the requisition for obtaining certified copy was filed on 04.01.2019 much beyond the prescribed period of limitation for filing the Civil Revision application. It is apparent from the limitation petition that the petitioners have failed to furnish acceptable and cogent explanation for delay of 1 year 10 months 24 days in filing the revision application. It is further contended that it is the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months and time was consumed in procedural formalities and also the file was kept in the Almirah of the office of the advocates for several months. In such view
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 39/66
of the matter, the limitation petition may be dismissed having no acceptable explanation of huge delay.
Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in Civil Revision No. 20 of
2019
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 40/66
was earlier under the Road Construction Department NH Division, Aurangabad but from 22.09.2015 onwards, this matter was transferred to NH Division Gulzarbagh. It is further pleaded that the concerned advocate of the department could not prepare the grounds to file civil revision application due to paucity of time. Then, the file was sent to another counsel on 22.08.2016. The learned counsel for the department returned the file to the department on 22.09.2017 along with statement of facts for filing civil revision application. The same was sent to the department for its approval by the Executive Engineer NH Division Gulzarbagh vide Letter No. 1127 dated 21.09.2017 through the concerned Superintending Engineer. It is further contended that the said file was again sent to another advocate of the department for preparing grounds for condonation of delay on 09.11.2017. The same was returned along with the statements of facts with regard to the condonation of delay by the concerned advocate of the department on 24.11.2017. Thereafter the present revision application has been filed on 06.02.2019. Hence, there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioners and prayer has been made to condone the delay in the interest of justice.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 41/66
through his learned counsel by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party and also filed rejoinder to I.A. No. 1 of 2019 (wrongly typed as I.A. No. 1 of 2020) and vehemently opposed the condonation of huge delay of 3 years 9 months 16 days.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 42/66
contended that the lame excuse and reasons are not sufficient for condonation of delay. The statement made by the petitioners is totally misleading, laxity on the part of petitioner as well as casualness of the petitioners. It is further contended that the Apex Court as well as this Court has already held that “the Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few”. In such view of the matter, the huge delay of 3 years 9 months 16 days cannot be condoned in the interest of justice.
Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2020 in C.R. No. 21 of 2019
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 43/66
Executing Court which was received on 28.05.2018 and on getting the said information with regard to execution case arising out of Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 61 of 2012, the then Superintending Engineer, N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, issued letter no. 1636 dated 30.05.2018 and directed the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, to appear before the learned Execution Court through Government Pleader and also directed to submit the stand of the Government in this regard and further directed that statement of facts would be prepared and the same would be sent for approval. In compliance of aforesaid letter, the Executive Engineer N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, issued letter dated 04.06.2018 and requested the Government Pleader to make pairvi in the matter. It is further submitted that the Engineer-in-chief, Road Construction Department also issued memo No. 4131(E) dated 14.06.2018 and directed the Executive Engineer N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, to prepare the statement of facts for filing show cause in the Execution Case No. 284 of 2017 on the direction of the superior authority of the concerned department. The Executive Engineer N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, enquired about the Reference Case No. 61 of 2012 from the learned Arbitration Tribunal and then they learnt that
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 44/66
the matter has already been disposed of by order/ Award dated 04.11.2015. Thereafter, on 14.09.2018 he applied for obtaining certified copy of Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 61 of 2012. The same was supplied on the same day. After perusal of the said Award dated 04.11.2015 passed by the learned Arbitration Tribunal, it was decided to challenge the Award of Arbitration Tribunal and before this Court by way of filing Civil Revision application. Accordingly, statement of facts and grounds for filing Revision application was prepared and the same was put up before the authority concerned on 19.11.2018 for sanction. After preparation of Civil Revision application, the file along with draft was sent for vetting and after completing the procedure, the file was sent to the Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance on 11.12.2018. The Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance sent the file to the learned Advocate General for filing Civil Revision application against the impugned Award. Thereafter, the present Revision application has been filed on 06.02.2019. It is further submitted that petitioners had no knowledge about the Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 61 of 2012 and there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioners. The delay has occurred on account of complying the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 45/66
procedural formalities and prayed that it may be condoned for the ends of justice.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 46/66
in such view of the matter petitioners cannot take plea that they had no knowledge about the passing of the Award. There is no plausible explanation for delay in the instant application. The said Award was passed after hearing the parties and it is not an ex parte Award. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have themselves stated that they had learnt about the Execution case on 28.05.2018 itself therefore their statement that they learnt about the Award on 14.09.2018 is patently false. It is further contended that the deponent in order to get order of condonation of delay in favour of petitioner, has made false statement in limitation petition and as such the petitioners are not entitled to equitable relief in the nature of condonation of delay as it is well settled that if the party approaches the Court with unclean hands, as in the present case, no equitable relief can be granted to such unfair litigants. Petitioners have not furnished sufficient cause of delay in filing of the present Revision application except saying that delay has occurred due to movement of file from one office to another. It is further contended that the State and its officers cannot be treated differently while considering the prayer of condonation of delay. The petitioners have miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reason which may be sufficient to condone the delay of
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 47/66
about 3 years.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 48/66
appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order on lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored”.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 49/66
decision of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy) wherein, the Apex Court has held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. In paragraph 13 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that while condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
50/66
in (2005) 3 SCC 752.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 51/66
grant of leave and set aside High Court’s judgment. In the present cases, in all the revision applications, almost same grounds have been taken by the authorities concerned with regard to movement of file for obtaining sanction and other formalities.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 52/66
filed on 08.03.2017 and on the same day, the said certified copy of Award was ready for delivery (in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2018) which has been filed on 09.01.2018, Award dated 31.08.2016 was received on 29.09.2016 by the petitioners (in Civil Revision Application No. 194 of 2018) which has been filed on 20.12.2018, Award dated 22.11.2016 was received on 06.12.2016 by the petitioners (in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2019 which has been filed on 15.01.2019), Award dated 20.01.2015 was received on 21.03.2015 (in Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019) which has been filed on 06.02.2019 after prescribed period of limitation and the impugned Award was passed in presence of the petitioners’ counsel (in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2019 which has been filed on 06.02.2019 after about 3 years of expiry of limitation period of 90 days).
“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
53/66
with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
54/66
and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 55/66
judgment. Learned senior counsel also placed paragraph 28 & 29. The Apex Court has held that the learned single judge of the High Court altogether ignored the gaping holes in the story concocted by the Corporation about misplacement of the papers and total absence of any explanation as to why nobody even bothered to file applications for issue of certified copies of the judgment for more than 7 years. It has been further held that the reason assigned by the learned single judge be treated as poor apology for exercise of discretion by the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of the trial court.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 56/66
held that the petitioner had failed to furnish acceptable and cogent explanation for delay of 9 months 26 days in filing the revision application. Accordingly, the said revision application was dismissed on the point of delay of 9 months 26 days without any cogent explanation.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 57/66
passed in Reference Case No. 152 of 2014 ( Civil Revision No. 208 of 2017), Award dated 17.08.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 59 of 2015 ( Civil Revision No. 258 of 2017), Award dated 21.08.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 38 of 2013 (Civil Revision No. 225 of 2017), Award dated 30.11.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 106 of 2012 ( Civil Revision No.05 of 2018), Award dated 31.08.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 134 of 2013 ( Civil Revision No. 194 of 2018), Award dated 22.11.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 110 of 2011 (Civil Revision No. 9 of 2019), Award dated 20.01.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 102 of 2011 (Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019) and Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 61 of 2012 (Civil Revision No. 21 of 2019) have been challenged separately in the aforesaid revision applications filed under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 which provides for revision application to be filed within three months from the date on which the Award is made. The limitation for filing of the Revision Applications expired on 06.08.2014, 20.06.2016, 25.01.2017, 21.11.2014, 17.11.2016, 28.02.2017, 30.11.2016, 22.02.2017, 20.04.2015 & 04.02.2016 respectively.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 58/66
the following table.
| SI No . |
No. of Civil Revisio n |
Date of Award |
Date of knowled ge/ commun ication of Award |
Date of requisiti on for C.C. of Award |
Award ready for delivery |
Date of supplied |
Date of filing Civil Revisio n |
Delay in filing Civil Revisi on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 9/2017 | 06.05. 2014 |
25.05. 2014 |
----- | ---- | ---- | 12.01. 2017 |
2 years 5 months 6 days |
| 2. | 203/201 7 |
01.03. 2016 |
17.03. 2016 |
02.08. 2017 |
02.08. 2017 |
08.08. 2017 |
11.10. 2017 |
1 year 3 months 22 days |
| 3. | 208/2017 | 25.10. 2016 |
01.12. 2016 |
16.10. 2017 |
16.10. 2017 |
16.10. 2017 |
17.10. 2017 |
8 months 22 days |
| 4. | 258/2017 | 17.08. 2016 |
07.09. 2016 |
06.12. 2016 |
06.12. 2016 |
07.12. 2016 |
20.12. 2017 |
1 year 1 month 3 days |
| 5. | 225/2017 | 21.08. 2014 |
08.09. 2014 |
10.07. 2017 |
12.07. 2017 |
13.07. 2017 |
09.11. 2017 |
2 years 11 months 18 days |
| 6. | 5/2018 | 30.11. 2016 |
19.12. 2016 |
08.03. 2017 |
08.03. 2017 |
10.03. 2017 |
09.01. 2018 |
10 months 9 days |
| 7. | 194/2018 | 31.08. 2016 |
29.09. 2016 |
18.12. 2018 |
18.12. 2018 |
18.12. 2018 |
20.12. 2018 |
2 years 21 days |
| 8. | 9/2019 | 22.11. 2016 |
06.12. 2016 |
04.01. 2019 |
04.01. 2019 |
04.01. 2019 |
15.01. 2019 |
1 year 10 months 24 days |
| 9. | 20/2019 | 20.01. 2015 |
21.03. 2015 |
09.10. 2017 |
09.10. 2017 |
09.10. 2017 |
06.02. 2019 |
3 years 9 months 16 days |
| 10. | 21/2019 | 04.11. 2015 |
28.05. 2018 |
14.09. 2018 |
14.09. 2018 |
14.09. 2018 |
06.02. 2019 |
3 years 2 days |
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 59/66
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 60/66
so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not “sufficient cause” has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 61/66
part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be justified grounds to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The Hon’ble Apex Court in number of cases particularly in the Postmaster General (Supra) in paragraph no. 27, 28 & 29 has observed that merely because the Government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down.
(i) The State of Rajasthan Vs. Bal Kishan Mathur reported in (2014) 1 SCC 592 -at paras 8-8.2.
(ii) The State of U.P. Thr. Exe. Engineer & Anr. Vs. Amar Nath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 – paras 2-3.
(iii) The State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Bherulal reported in (2020) 10 SCC 654 – at paras 3-4.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 62/66
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 and has held that while condoning the delay or refusing to condone the delay, the principles laid down in the said judgment has to be considered and discussed in Paragraph no. 26 of the judgment as
under:-
“ 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
63/66
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(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.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 64/66
deponents stated that files were sent to the office of learned Advocate General on 16.12.2016 and 28.03.2017 respectively. The said files were kept in the bunch of regular cases by mistake of Advocate’s Clerk of the concerned panel lawyers due to which the said civil revision applications could not be filed in time. The said revision applications were filed on 20.12.2018 and 15.01.2019. It is pertinent to mention that the said files were located on 05.10.2018 and 28.09.2018 respectively while both the revision applications were filed after 2 months 14 days and 3 months 16 days respectively. In another revision application i.e. Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019, the plea has been taken that the petitioners were not dealing with the matter in Reference Case. The said work was being carried out by Road Construction Department, NH Division, Aurangabad, and on 22.09.2015, the work was handed over to NH Division, Gulzarbagh. This plea is apparently false and misleading. It is apparent from the Award dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 102 of 2011 that the petitioners were one of the opposite parties of the Award under challenge. Moreover, the petitioners also filed rejoinder to the claim of the opposite party in the said Reference case. The said petitioners have not come with clean hand.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
65/66
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 66/66
to give any acceptable and cogent reason to condone such a huge delay of 2 years 5 months 8 days, 1 year 3 months 22 days, 8 months 22 days, 1 year 1 month 3 days, 2 years 11 months 18 days, 10 months 9 days, 2 years 21 days, 1 year 10 months 24 days, 3 years 9 months 16 days & 3 years 2 days respectively.
(Khatim Reza, J)
Sankalp/ Premchand-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay ranging from about 8 months to nearly 3 years 9 months in filing ten civil revision applications against Bihar Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal awards should be con
Whether routine file movement, bureaucratic procedural formalities or mistakes of advocates' clerks constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation by the State.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sheo Raj Singh (d) through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.Referred¶10
(2023) 10 SCC 531 · Who else cites this
State of Manipur & Ors. Vs. Koting LamkangReferred¶11
(2019) 10 SCC 408 · Who else cites this
Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat vs. G. Arumugam (D) By Lrs.Referred¶56
(2015) 3 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan MumbaiReferred¶56
2012 (5) SCC 157 · Who else cites this
N. Balakrishnan v. M. KrishnamurthyReferred¶56
(1998) 7 SCC 123 · Who else cites this
Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs vs State Of A.P. & Ors.Relied on¶57
2011 (4) SCC 363 · Who else cites this
State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Ors.Referred¶57
(2005) 3 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. And AnotherFollowed¶60
(2012) 3 SCC 563 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar and Others Vs. Santosh KumarRelied on¶62
Civil Revision No. 109 of 2018
State of Bihar & Others Vs. M/s Trimurti ConstructionRelied on¶62
Civil Revision No. 48 of 2015 dated 23.09.2015
Basawaraj Vs. LAORelied on¶65
(2013) 14 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶66
(2002) 4 SCC 578 · Who else cites this
Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. NayakReferred¶66
(1992) 1 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Bal Kishan MathurFollowed¶67
(2014) 1 SCC 592 · Who else cites this
The State of U.P. Thr. Exe. Engineer & Anr. Vs. Amar Nath YadavFollowed¶67
(2014) 2 SCC 422 · Who else cites this
The State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. BherulalFollowed¶67
(2020) 10 SCC 654 · Who else cites this
Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by Lrs. And Ors. Vs. The Special Duty Collector (LA)Relied on¶68
2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department
M/s Rambriksha Singh
M/s Jai Maa Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Birendra Prasad Singh
Shri Shailendra Kumar Akela
M/s Maruti Enterprises
Khatim Reza
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
