Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 195 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. S. K. Verma

2007-01-29

J.N.BHATT, S.K.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 695 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules, which is challenged by the other side on the ground that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay as the cause of delay has not been explained. 2. The State-appellants have filed the detailed affidavit. The respondent has, also, filed the counter dffidavit. We have examined the merits and contents thereof. We have, also, considered the relevant propositions of law and the factual matrix enumerated in affidavits. 3. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , (Act) prescribes for the extension of prescribed period in certain cases. There is a wholesome object and rationale in incorporating such provision in the Act. With a view to obtain extension of time by invocation of provision of Sec. 5 of the Act, the party seeking extension has to justify and satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, revision or objections within the prescribed period of limitation. What is the sufficient cause and whether the delay has been explained or not is a matter to be judged and determined on the basis of factual profile of each case. We do not want to reproduce the facts stated in the affidavit as we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filing the Letters Patent Appeal within the period of limitation by the State against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge on account of, mainly, inter and intra departmental procedural facets. 4. The State is an impersonal machinery, even otherwise, ordinarily liberal and pragmatic approach is warranted in view of the provision of Sec. 5 of the Act so as to see that, as far as possible, where there is an establishment of the good grounds or "sufficient cause", no matter is to be thrown overboard on the altar of the technicalities. Substantial justice is the cry of the day. The principles laid down in Sec. 5 of the Act, clearly, connotes that, ordinarily, on sufficient cause being shown irrespective of the period in the given facts and situation, the court has to take pragmatic and liberal view and to see that the cause of substantial justice is advanced and not thwarted and, precisely, law has to be observed. The principles laid down in Sec. 5 of the Act, clearly, connotes that, ordinarily, on sufficient cause being shown irrespective of the period in the given facts and situation, the court has to take pragmatic and liberal view and to see that the cause of substantial justice is advanced and not thwarted and, precisely, law has to be observed. But in view of the provision of Sec. 5 of the Act discretion has to be exercised for the extension of time on proving the sufficient cause. The court has to keep in mind the celebrated doctrine that the justice should be done on merits rather than on technicalities. 5. It is the Courts discretion under Sec. 5 of the Act and the Court has to strive to see that a rightful or prima facie rightful case is not condemned to dustbin by sacrificing the principles of substantial justice on the altar of the technicalities. 6. It is, also, settled proposition of law that in case of impersonal machinery at times delay occurs and it has to be viewed, generally, liberally and dispassionately. At times; delay occurs on account of inter and intra departmental procedure. If sufficient cause is shown with the help of the provision of Sec. 5 of the Act the extension of time for filing the proposed appeal can be granted at the discretion of the court. The expression sufficient cause in Sec. 5 has to be viewed and evaluated with a pragmatic approach, in a justice oriented approach, rather than, the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. In Government matters certain amount of latitude is, also, permissible in view of certain proposition of law. The public interest suffers if appeals are lost because of such default. The view with which we are in- clined to at this stage is very much re-enforced by the latest decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao and Others, (2005)3 SCC 752 . The principles for pragmatic approach and, more so, in Government matters have been lucidly articulated and expounded. We are, fully, supported by the said decision in the light of the facts of the present case. 7. There are catena of judicial pronouncements. We need not divulge ourselves into meticulous examination of entire such case law. The principles for pragmatic approach and, more so, in Government matters have been lucidly articulated and expounded. We are, fully, supported by the said decision in the light of the facts of the present case. 7. There are catena of judicial pronouncements. We need not divulge ourselves into meticulous examination of entire such case law. It is, therefore, we have considered the latest aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court. 8. After taking into consideration the factual matrix, the contents and colour of the affidavits filed by the respondents-appellants (herein), as well as, the petitioner-respondent (herein) and the principles laid down in a number of judicial pronouncements and in the light of the latest decision, which is quoted hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the sufficient cause has been established in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and, therefore, the delay is required to be condoned to see that the justice is done, substantially, and the matter is not thrown overboard on technicalities. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute. No cost. 9. The matter is directed to be circulated for admission in its usual course.