Dismissed

State and Anr. v. Yogesh Kumar

Rajasthan HC14 May 2014CSA/508/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur dismissed an S.B. Civil Second Appeal alleging it was barred by limitation. Rejecting the appellant's claim for condonation of delay, the court held that standard bureaucratic explanations for file processing delays are insufficient under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, dismissed; appeal and stay application dismissed.

State and Anr. Vs Yogesh Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

: J U D G M E N T :

¶5

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.508/2011

¶6

The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs.

¶7

Yogesh Kumar

¶8

Date of Judgment :: 14.5.2014

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Mr. B.L. Bhati, for the appellant/s. Mr. Rajeev Purohit, for the respondent/s.

¶12

BY THE COURT:

¶13

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2008 has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶14

The present appeal is reported barred by 133 days. Alongwith appeal, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act') has been filed. The reasons indicated for delay in filing the present appeal reads as under:-

¶15

“2. That after obtaining certified copy of the judgment on dtd. 09.09.2010 and received the opinion of the Government Counsel was obtained on 20.09.2010 and wrote letter to the Additional Director (Administration) Secondary Education, Bikaner on dtd. 23.09.2010.

¶16

(3)- That the matter was examined at different

¶17

¶18

levels and after processing the matter, it was decided to file Second Appeal and Officer In-charge was appointed hence in pursuance thereof, sanction was accorded and in pursuance thereof, the entire record was collected. Factual position was prepared, legal reference were obtained and thereafter the Officer-in-charge contacted the Government Counsel on 24.03.2011 and in whose consultation the appeal was got drafted which is being filed.”

¶19

A reply to the application has been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, opposing the application seeking condonation of delay. It is inter-alia indicated that the averments contained in the application does not make out a case of sufficient reason so as to condone delay. The reference has been made in the several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court on the said aspect.

¶20

It would be noticed that the appeal filed by the appellants before the first appellate court was also barred by limitation and the first appellate court after considering the submissions made in this regard came to the conclusion that the delay was not liable to be condoned and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

¶21

From the contents of the application, it is apparent that the standard and stock reason adopted in appeals preferred by the State regarding examination of matter at different levels and its processing taking unusually long time and the same usually culminating in granting the sanction after the limitation in the matter has expired, has been indicated as the reason for the delay in filing the appeal.

¶22

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors.

¶23

¶24

v.Living Media India Limited & Anr. : (2012) 3 SCC 563, while considering a similar circumstance and considering the entire law on the subject laid down as under:-

¶25

“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.

¶26

In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodes, their agencies 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.

¶27

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.”

¶28

Similarly, Mahanager Telephone Nigam Limited v. State of Maharastra & Ors. : (2013) 9 SCC 92 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated the above principles.

¶29

In view of the categoric law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶30

¶31

Supreme Court for dealing with the application of the present nature, no case is made out for condonation of delay.

¶32

The application under Section 5 of the Act is, therefore, dismissed.

¶33

Consequently, the appeal and the stay application are also dismissed.

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶35

rm/9

State and Anr. v. Yogesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Anr. v. Yogesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Prasad Vs Gauri Shanker and Ors.

Smt.Rekha Vs Jamna Lal

Krapesh Lakhara Vs Kamla and Ors.

Amar Chand and Ors. Vs E.O.Municipal Corp.Anoopgarh and Ors.

Smt.Vimla Vs Ghanshyam

U.O.I.and Anr. Vs State