2025:UHC:8673 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2606 of 2025 12 September, 2025 Trilok Singh & others --Petitioners Versus Forest Department Dehradun --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. along with Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.651 of 2024, Forest Department vs. Trilok & others annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. 2. Facts in nutshell are that the respondent- department preferred an appeal against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by trial court i.e. Forest Consolidation Officer/SDM, Sadar, Dehradun in Case No.01 of 2015-16, Trilok Singh & others vs. Forest Department. Since the appeal was belated, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed along with the appeal. The said application has been allowed at the cost of Rs.1,000/- by the court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun, by way of impugned order dated 20.08.2025. Hence, the petitioners have come up before this Court challenging the said order of condoning of delay. 3. The grounds for allowing the application under 2025:UHC:8673 2 Section 5 of the Limitation Act is that on 09.02.2022, the correspondence was made with Joint Director Law. Thereafter, legal opinion was sought from DGC (Civil), Dehradun. On 25.08.2024, conjoint meeting of Principal Secretary of the Department was called for in which after careful consideration a resolution was passed to prefer an appeal on behalf of the department before the court, wherefor the letter was sent on behalf of the Government of Uttarakhand on 05.11.2024. 4. From these facts, it appears that the delay is not intentional rather the delay is bonafide, which is liable to be condoned. There does not appear to have caused delay intentionally or deliberately. 5. In the case of Ramnath Sahu vs. Govardhan Sahu; AIR 2002 SC 1201, a reference whereof has also been made in the impugned order, it has been held by the Apex Court that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting part. 6. In such view of the matter, the court below has allowed the application seeking delay at the cost of Rs.1,000/-. More so, it needs to be mentioned that this is an appeal preferred by the department and in the matters regarding Government causing of delay is bound to occur. In my opinion, there is no serious illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed at the threshold. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.09.2025 AK