2025:JHHC:20858 --1-- C.M.P. No. 226 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 226 of 2025 ---- Ramanuj Achari, aged about 69 years, son of Late Rangnath Achari, resident of Bero, PO – Godi Bero, PS – Raghunathpur, District – Purulia, State – West Bengal .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand, represented by the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad Collectorate, Dhanbad, PO, PS and District – Dhanbad 2. The District Magistrate, Dhanbad having its office at Dhanbad Collectorate, Dhanbad, PO, PS and District – Dhanbad 3. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad (Now Putki) having its office at Putki, PO and PS – Putki, District – Dhanbad 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad, having is office at Dhanbad Collectorate, Dhanbad, PO, PS and District – Dhanbad 5. Gopal Achari, son of Late Rangnath Achari, resident of Bero, PO – Godi Bero, PS – Raghunathpur, District – Purulia 6. Smt. Vijaya Devi, Wife of Madhusudan Iyengar and daughter of Late Basudev Achari 7. Smt. Sujata Devi, wife of Nibas Iyenger and daughter of Late Basudev Achari 8. Sri Raghunath Goswamin, so of Late Basudev Achari 9. Sri Bijay Krishna Goswamin, son of Late Basudev Achari O.P. Nos.6 to 9 all are residents of Bero, PO – Godi Bero, PS – Raghunathpur, District – Purulia, State – West Bengal .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State :- Mr. Saurav Mahto, Advocate ---- 05/29.07.2025 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing 2025:JHHC:20858 --2-- C.M.P. No. 226 of 2025 for the petitioner through V.C. and Mr. Saurav Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in connection with Civil Appeal No.14 of 2022 has been allowed by the learned Court. 3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no explanation in the petition for condoning of the delay and finding to that effect is also recorded by the learned Court and in spite of that period of 1096 days has been condoned. He submits that allowing of the petition in spite of finding of no satisfactory explanation of condoning the delay is perverse, as such the said order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the land belongs to the State and earlier the Circle Office, Putki was not there and they had no knowledge about the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2019. He submits that although in the limitation petition the plea of Covid -19 pandemic was also taken, however, it appears that it has not been taken care by the learned Court. 5. The Court has perused the limitation petition and finds that Covid – 19 and other grounds have been taken for condoning the delay. The learned Court has also noted the same in the impugned 2025:JHHC:20858 --3-- C.M.P. No. 226 of 2025 order, however, it is surprising that how the learned Court has given a finding that no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the appellant. It is well known that in a suo moto cognizance of Hon’ble Supreme Court during Covid – 19 pandemic, the statutory period has been condoned and that period was required to be condoned. It has been pointed out that the judgment was delivered on 29.04.2019 and appeal was preferred on 07.06.2022 and in that view of the matter the Covid – 19 period is required to be excluded in calculating the limitation and that has not been done and the further learned Court has given the finding that there is no explanation, as such the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad is hereby set aside. 6. The limitation petition is restored to the file of the learned first appellate court in Civil Appeal No.14 of 2022 which will be decided further after providing the opportunity to both the sides and in deciding the same the learned Court will take into account the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court taken in its own motion in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In Re reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 wherein at paragraph No.5 it has been held as under :- 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: 2025:JHHC:20858 --4-- C.M.P. No. 226 of 2025 5.1. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. 5.2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. 5.3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 7. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Court will pass afresh order. 8. This petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/