Appellants sought condonation of delay in refiling an interlocutory application arising from a dismissed Letters Patent Appeal, citing Covid-19 and advocate's clerk's absence. The court found unexplained laches and habitual default and refused condonation.
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 Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.752 of 2021
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1377 of 1998
======================================================
Patna High Court MJC No.752 of 2021(11) dt.04-02-2025 2/5
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nil Kamal, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA)
11 04-02-2025
Re:-I.A. No.01 of 2023
Heard I.A. No.01 of 2023.
2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1 year 6 months and 8 days in filing M.J.C. No.752 of 2021 arising out of L.P.A. No.1377 of 1998. After excluding the delay during Covid-19 period since 15.03.2020 till filing of M.J.C. on 24.02.2021 in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court direction contained in order dated 10.01.2022 in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re reported in (2022) 3 SCC
Patna High Court MJC No.752 of 2021(11) dt.04-02-2025 3/5
117 , the delay is about 7 months 21 days in filing M.J.C. No.752 of 2021 arising out of L.P.A. No. 1377 of 1998.
3. The reason for delay given by the appellants in application is that on 25.06.2019 the concerned Advocate’s Clerk was on leave and as such the said case could not be marked in the daily cause list, thus, could not be prosecuted. Moreover, when the Court resumed physical functioning post Covid-19, on inquiry of listing status by the appellants in L.P.A. No. 1377 of 1998 it was found dismissed for non prosecution on 04.02.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present application has been filed on 17.02.2023 to cure the defects pointed out by the Office with respect to limitation and there is no deliberate laches on the part of appellants but the same was due to non-communication of information and Covid19 pandemic.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no sufficient reason has been shown by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the L.P.A.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it appears that earlier L.P.A. was dismissed on 22.03.2010 for want of prosecution. However, the same was
Patna High Court MJC No.752 of 2021(11) dt.04-02-2025 4/5
restored vide order dated 17.01.2011 passed in M.J.C. No.2028 of 2010. The L.P.A. was again dismissed vide order 25.06.2019 due to non-prosecution.
7. It is well settled that if a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, appellants have to explain the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation.
8. It is well settled that if the cause is shown insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned. In the instant case the L.P.A. was dismissed on 25.06.2019 and Covid-19 period started in March, 2020. The M.J.C. was filed on 24.02.2021 but the instant application for condonation of delay was e-filed only on 21.02.2023. There is laches on the part of appellants who seem to be habitual defaulter and such practice may be considered as dilatory tactic to abuse the process of law. We are not convinced with the reasons given in I.A.
9. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the appellants have not made out a case so as to condone the delay of about 7 months 21 days in filing M.J.C. No.752 of 2021. Hence I.A. No.01 of 2023 stands dismissed.
Patna High Court MJC No.752 of 2021(11) dt.04-02-2025 5/5
Re:-M.J.C. No.752 of 2021
10. Resultantly, M.J.C. No.752 of 2021 arising out of
L.P.A. No.1377 of 1998 stands dismissed.
11. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
ritik/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of about 7 months 21 days in filing M.J.C. No.752 of 2021 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In ReRelied on¶2
(2022) 3 SCC 117 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Savitri Devi
Dawanti Devi
Tarkeshwar Halwai
Dulhin Anandi Devi
Dulhin Urmila Devi
P. B. Bajanthri
Sunil Dutta Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
