Dismissed

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Roop Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2018LPA/1232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the State of Haryana challenged a judgment allowing a writ petition. The court held the appeal barred by delay and laches, referencing identical insufficient explanations in dismissed appeals where condonation under Section 5 was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Roop Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

LPA No. 1232 of 2018 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 09. 10. 2018

¶3

St at e of Har yana and ot her s …. . Appel l ant s

¶4

ver sus

¶5

Roop Si ngh . . . . . Respondent s

¶6

CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE

¶7

Pr esent : Shr i Deepak Bal yan, Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al , Har yana, f or t he appel l ant s Shr i Dhar amveer Si ngh Phour , Advocat e f or caveat or / r espondent

¶8

KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE : ( Or al )

¶9

Thi s appeal under cl ause X of t he Let t er s Pat ent has been f i l ed by St at e of Har yana chal l engi ng j udgment and or der dat ed 07. 05. 2015 passed by l ear ned Si ngl e Judge al l owi ng t he wr i t pet i t i on i n t er ms of j udgment r ender ed i n Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 10017 of 2011.

¶10

I t i s t o be t aken not e of t hat 24 wr i t pet i t i ons wer e di sposed of by common j udgment agai nst whi ch number of Let t er s Pat ent appeal s wer e f i l ed by t he St at e of Har yana. Some of t hem have been di smi ssed on mer i t s whi l e some of t hem bar r ed by l i mi t at i on. The appeal i n quest i on i s r epor t ed t o be bar r ed by del ay and l aches of 906 days i n f i l i ng and 193 days i n r e- f i l i ng t he appeal . The expl anat i on submi t t ed f or t hi s i nor di nat e del ay i s al most t he same as was one t ender ed i n LPA No. 32 of 2018 and LPA No. 2316 of 2017, whi ch wer e bar r ed by del ay and l aches of 913 days and 898 days, r espect i vel y. I n bot h t he cases, t he expl anat i on submi t t ed by t he appel l ant ( s) was not f ound t o be suf f i ci ent and as such appl i cat i ons under

¶11

PARKASH CHAND 2018.10.12 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

LPA- 1232- 2018

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

Sect i on 5 seeki ng condonat i on of del ay wer e di smi ssed and accor di ngl y t he appeal s wer e al so di smi ssed bei ng bar r ed by l i mi t at i on.

¶15

Si nce i n t he case i n hand al so t he expl anat i on cont ai ned i n appl i cat i on under Sect i on 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act i s same as i n t he af or esai d t wo appeal s, i . e. LPA No. 32 of 2018 and LPA No. 2316 of 2017, we see no r eason t o t ake a di f f er ent vi ew t han t he one t aken ear l i er by us whi l e di smi ssi ng t he af or esai d appeal s as bar r ed by l i mi t at i on. Accor di ngl y, t her e bei ng no gr ound t o condone t he del ay, appl i cat i on under Sect i on 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act i n t hi s appeal al so st ands di smi ssed and as a consequence t he appeal i s di smi ssed as bar r ed by l i mi t at i on.

¶16

( KRI SHNA MURARI ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶17

( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE

¶18

1. 2018 par kash

¶19

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶20

PARKASH CHAND 2018.10.12 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Roop Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Roop Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samunder Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Devender Vs Allahabad Bank and Others

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

State of Haryana and Others Vs Dharmvir

Sanjay Kumar Vs State Bank of Patiala and Ors.

Ravi Kumar Vs Municipal Council Gobindgarh and Anr.