LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1280 : 2024 INSC 932 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 48636 of 2024) 29 November 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellant-State challenged the High Court judgment dismissing the second appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years holding that the delay was not explained satisfactorily. Headnotes† Delay – Refusal to condone – When justified – Delay of 5 years in filing the second appeal by the appellant-State – Not condoned by High Court, appeal dismissed – Challenged: Held: High Court rightly refused to condone the delay – Enormous delay occurred at every stage, from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court till the date of filing the second appeal by the State – When a case is filed beyond limitation, the petitioner 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 – While a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal but when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time – No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause – Enormous delay of 1788 days in filing the second appeal was not explained satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no plausible reason was put forth by the State – Petition dismissed, costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the State.[Paras 4, 5, 7, 8] Delay – In filing petitions/appeals/applications – Callous, lackadaisical attitude of Government officials – Loss to Government exchequer – Officers responsible for delay/ lapses to be penalized – Enormous delay of 1788 days in filing [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1281 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary the second appeal by the appellant-State involving valuable Government lands: Held: State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal/Courts, etc. – States to fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned and penalize them, who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. [Para 6] Delay – Condonation – “sufficient cause” – Interpretation: Held: The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case – ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. [Para 5] Case Law Cited Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi [2021] 9 SCR 476 : 2021 SCC Online SC 1260; Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram [2023] 1 SCR 449 : 2023 SCC Online SC 92; Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat [1981] 2 SCR 509 : AIR 1981 SC 733 – relied on. List of Acts Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Delay; Condonation; Limitation; Second appeal; Inordinate delay of 5 years; Enormous delay; “sufficient cause”; Delay not explained satisfactorily; No plausible reason; Costs imposed; Discretion to condone the delay; Negligence/inaction/lack of bona fides; Callous/lackadaisical attitude of Government officials; Loss to Government exchequer; Valuable Government lands; Penalize; Fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in SA No. 2895 of 2019 1282 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G., Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ms. Samridhi S. Jain, Advs. for the Petitioner. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This Special Leave Petition is filed by the petitioner – State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 in Second Appeal No. 2895 of 2019, whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed with inordinate delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days and no satisfactory reason was adduced for the same. 2. We have heard Mr. Harme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.