This order dismisses a delayed regular appeal preferred by the State against a time-barred decree. The Court rejected the application to condone a 1180-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, finding the stated reason insufficient.
Condotioning of delay and appeal dismissed; stay petition and pending applications 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.
[2023/RJJD/016858]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 57/2018
State of Rajasthan through the Mining Engineer, Sojat City, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Sahu S/o Shri Moolchand Sahu, R/o House No. 86-A45, Ramnagar, Narsinghpura, Ajmer Raj..
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. |
Lakshaya Pagaria for |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. | SandeepShah,AAG | |
| For Respondent(s) | : -- |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order
23/05/2023
[2023/RJJD/016858]
[CFA-57/2018]
(2 of 4)
time to file an appropriate application/additional affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On 18.03.2021, time was again sought and the last opportunity to do the needful was granted. On 19.04.2021, a statement was made by learned counsel for the appellant that the requisite additional affidavit was being filed during the course of the day. Therefore, the same was directed to be tagged with the appeal and the appeal was directed to be listed on the next date. However, no such additional affidavit was filed and on 04.03.2022, one last opportunity was again granted to the counsel to file the additional affidavit. The same has not been filed till date and today also, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for time to do the needful.
(3 of 4)
[2023/RJJD/016858]
[CFA-57/2018]
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has 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. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
(4 of 4) [CFA-57/2018]
[2023/RJJD/016858]
(REKHA BORANA),J
29-Sachin/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a vague averment of seeking legal counsel constitutes a sufficient cause to condone a delay of 1180 days in filing a regular appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Rajasthan through the Mining Engineer, Sojat City
Mahendra Sahu S/o Shri Moolchand Sahu
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
