[2025:RJ-JP:45763] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2491/2025 State of Rajasthan through - Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Neeti Kaul W/o Shri Deepak Kaul, D/o Late Shri Balkishan Kaul And Late Smt. Krishna Pratibha, aged about 64 Years, R/o House No. C-30, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi, Jaipur. 2. State Bank of India, (Old State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur) Branch Secretariat, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Through Branch Manager 3. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sanganeri Gate, M.I. Road, Jaipur Branch, through Manager 4. Reserve Bank of India, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur Through Branch Manager 5. Central Bank of India, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Branch Manager 6. Central Bank of India, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi Though Branch Manager 7. Central Bank of India, Branch Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi Through Branch Manager 8. Dena Bank, M.I. Road, Panch Batti, Jaipur Through Branch Manager 9. Indian Post Office, Secretariat Branch, Jaipur Via Post Master General 10. Delhi Development Authority, Through Secretary, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi 110023 11. Station House Officer, Vidhayakpuri Police Station, Jaipur 12. General, Public ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakhar Jain for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/11/2025 1. Matter comes upon an application (IA No.1101/2025) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay of over 295 days in filing the present Civil Misc. Appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:45763] (2 of 6) [CMA-2491/2025] 2. That the present appeal has been filed by the appellant, assailing the order dated 12.04.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby the application for the grant of a Succession Certificate filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by the respondent, Smt. Neeti Kaul has been allowed. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:- (i) That the applicant-respondent has filed an application for the grant of succession certificate in respect of movable properties i.e. Earned leave Rs.6,300/-, Gratuity Rs. 32,025/-, State Insurance amount Rs.32,025/-, GPF amount Rs.4,104/-, amount lying in the FDR, amount deposited with DDA, jewellery lying in the locker having a valuation of Rs.15,275/-, which belongs to her mother Smt. Krishna Kaul. It was further stated that the father of the applicant late Sh. Bal Krishan Kaul expired on 20.04.1979 and the mother of the applicant late Smt. Krishna Kaul expired on 30.05.1983 and the applicant, being the sole surviving heir, is entitled for grant of a succession certificate. (ii) That to substantiate the aforesaid claim, the applicant examined AW-1 Neeti Kaul (herself), AW-2 Bala Chattri and exhibited documents marked as Ex.-1 to Ex.-36. (iii) That to controvert the said evidence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was led by the non-applicants. (iv) That after hearing arguments of all the parties upon the said application, the learned court below allowed the same and issued a succession certificate in favour of the applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that the succession certificate has been issued in relation to the movable properties amounting to [2025:RJ-JP:45763] (3 of 6) [CMA-2491/2025] Rs.1,32,008/- that too subject to execution of the undertaking and surety bond of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved of which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant, with a delay of 295 days. 5. Heard on the application for condonation of delay. 6. From a bare perusal of the record, it is also evident that the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 was passed by the learned Court below after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the impugned order has been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant herein, and the limitation to file the present appeal is 90 days from the date of the order, which expired on 10.07.2024. Admittedly, the appellant failed to take necessary steps within the limitation period and filed the present appeal on 02.05.2025 i.e after a delay of around 295 days, that too without filing a certified copy of the order dated 12.04.2024 and thereafter kept the matter in defect and the same was finally removed on 28.08.2025. Further, in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has tried to patch up the delay on the ground of alleged administrative exigencies. 7. From a bare perusal of the application, it is revealed that nothing was done by the appellant within the limitation prescribed, and after expiry of the limitation on 09.07.2024, only when the Respondent No. 1- Smt. Neeti Kaul submitted her representation on 22.08.2024 for compliance of the order dated 12.04.2024, the file was forwarded to the Department of Personnel vide administrative note dated 11.09.2024. Thereafter, the file was moved from one section to another and finally on 20.02.2025, instructions were issued by the Finance (Rules) Department to [2025:RJ-JP:45763] (4 of 6) [CMA-2491/2025] take necessary steps with regard to the payment of outstanding amount in compliance with the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Court below. However, with respect to the liability of interest on the outstanding gratuity, a decision was taken to file an appeal. Thus, the explanation submitted by the appellant can not be said to be sufficient or worth acceptance. 8. Apart from the above, the entire application is deliberately silent about the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, an opinion normally given by the counsel represented the appellant before the learned court below about future course of action. At the same time, this Court cannot lost sight to the fact that the present appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary which is considered to be the most efficient and prompt responding office of the Government, yet the lethargy and laxity that they have displayed in the present matter reflects that they had not taken due deligence and the way the appellant had proceeded with the matter demonstrates that the appellant was never diligent in the matter. 9. Further, while elucidating on the principle of condonation of delay vis-a-vis administrative laxity, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors.1, has held as under: 258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the Respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party 1 2025 INSC 1104 [2025:RJ-JP:45763] (5 of 6) [CMA-2491/2025] has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 259. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The Rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the Respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the Appellants. 261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State- machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude. 10. Furthermore, the Telangana High Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Co. India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana2, has held as under: "12. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Nath Yadav, [(2014) 2 SCC 422] the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that it is time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanations for the delay, and there was a bonafide 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-tapism in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duty with diligence and commitment. Similarly, in the decision Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India, [(2019) 2 SCC 455] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that administrative difficulties cannot be a valid reason to condone delay …" 2 2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1034 [2025:RJ-JP:45763] (6 of 6) [CMA-2491/2025] 11. In the light of the above legal propositions, that State or any of its instrumentalities cannot be given preferential treatment for condonation of delay, thus, the explanation put forward by the appellant herein cannot be said to be satisfactory or sufficient to condone the delay of 295 days in filing of the appeal. Therefore, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed for want of any sufficient cause. 12. The present appeal is also dismissed. 13. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /51