Sr. No. 23 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 3125/2025 in LPA No. 114/2025 Union Territory of J&K & ors. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Ms. Nowbahar Khan, assisting counsel vice Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA V/s Sarwa Begum & ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. S. A. Makroo, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahil Noor, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 12.08.2025 01. The applicants seek condonation of 596 days’ delay in filing the above titled Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed in SWP No. 349/2011. The condonation of delay is sought on two main grounds that examination of the matter and consideration regarding filing of appeal at various level led to consumption of time and there is an important question of law which requires adjudication in this matter. 02. The applicants have narrated chronological dates and events, in support of their case, showing that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. These are enumerated in Para No. 2 of the application which reads as under:- 2 (i) Date of judgment : 03.08.2023; (ii) Date of application for grant of certified copy of judgment : 24.04.2025; (iii) Date of communication taking up the matter with the Administrative Department : 03.10.2023; (iv) Letter of Administrative Department to the Law Department for grant of sanction : 28.11.2024; (v) Date of sanction : 02.01.2025; (vi) Date of submission of file to the Law Officer along with full record : 01.05.2025; (vii) Date of submission of draft of LPA by the Law Officer to the Department : 06.05.2025. 03. The contention of the applicants is that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor intentional as the matter was taken up with the Administrative Department seeking directions/legal opinion in consultation which required record to be collected from the Subordinate Court and to obtain legal advice, therefore, the time was spent in this process, coupled with the fact that some more time was spent while the matter was taken up with counsel for drafting the appeal. It is further submitted that when technical considerations and substantial justice are pitted against each other, substantial justice must be given preference. Lastly, it is submitted that the delay has occurred as result of unavoidable office formalities and bona fide and it was not deliberate as the applicants were prevented from sufficient cause from filing the application 3 within limit. In case the delay is not condoned, a strong case of the applicants on merits will suffer. 04. The non-applicants have appeared and raised serious objection and objected the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted by the non-applicants that the applicants have failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and they were required to explain each and every day’s delay which has not been explained by them, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed at the very outset. 05. The Court would exercise its discretion in condoning or declining to condone the delay judiciously and ensure that no serious prejudice is caused to the either of the parties to the proceedings. The right which accrues to a person when an appeal is barred by time because of negligence or default of the parties, cannot be taken in a casual or liberal exercise of discretionary power. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramlal, Motilal & Chhotelal vs. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited reported as (1962) 2 SCR 762 has held as under:- “In construing Section 5, it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as 4 beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be lightheartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal.” It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and at this stage, the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” 06. Before proceeding further and considering the reasons for justifying such a huge delay, it would be profitable to discuss the principles governing application for condonation of delay. In Union of India & anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr. reported as 2024 AIR SC 1884, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “27. 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. 32. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & others, (2008) 17 SCC 448, this Court held as follows: 19. In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat [(1981) 1 SCC 495 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 184] this Court observed: (SCC p. 497, para 6. … it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an 5 appeal. But when it allows 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 limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause.” (emphasis supplied) This judgment squarely applies to the facts in hand.” 07. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Basawaraj & anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported as 2013 (14) SCC 81 has held as under:- 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant 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. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. 08. The averments made in the application do not provide any cogent explanation for delay. The applicants 6 have also failed to explain each and every day’s delay and provide sufficient cause for explaining the delay. The only two grounds, on which the delay is sought to be condoned is the time spent in taking decision with regard to whether the appeal is to be filed and also there is merit in the case. The judgment in the case was passed in presence of learned counsel for both the sides on 03.08.2023 and the matter was taken up with the Administrative Department on 03.10.2023. Thereafter the sanction of the Administrative Department took more than a year i.e., on 28.11.2024 and sanction for fling the appeal came on 02.01.2025. There is no explanation as to why it took so much time for obtaining sanction. 09. The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again in various judgments has held that where there is no satisfactory explanation, delay should be condoned. In Office of the Chief Postmaster General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & anr. reported as AIR 2012 SC 1506, the Hon’ble Apex Court has refused to condone the inordinate delay of 427 days in filing the SLP. Para Nos. 12 & 13 of the judgment being relevant are reproduced as under:- “12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and 7 acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was 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- tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay”. 10. Similarly, in P. K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported as AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reversing the order passed by the High Court which has condoned the delay of 565 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree of Sub-Judge observed that ‘law of limitation may harshly affect a 8 particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time’. 11. In the application for condonation of delay, hardly any reason has been stated. The only averments made therein pertain to the dates on which the applications were moved. This application gives no explanation, much less sufficient cause for justifying the prayer for condonation of delay. The averments contained in the application cannot made the basis for denying a substantial right in law to the respondents. The right of a party cannot be taken away on such vague and insufficient averments. 12. The period of limitation and the object of prescribing a limitation period is not to destroy the rights of the parties, but is founded on public policy, fixing a lifespan for legal remedy in the interest of general welfare. This rule has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan versus M. Krishnamurthy reported as 2008 9 (228) ELT 162 Supreme Court. It is further stated that condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court. Mere length of delay may not, by itself, be a ground for rejecting an application, but if a satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the parties, which can be accepted by the Court and the delay may be condoned in consonance with the settled principles governing exercise of such jurisdiction, but if the explanation rendered is fancy fully, then in such circumstances, it will be unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right, which has accrued to it by reason of default of the other party. The Court has to protect the rights of both the parties and rights of owner should not be permitted to be destroyed arbitrarily or contrary to law. 13. For the reason stated in the application, the applicants have failed to show sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay and we, therefore, decline to condone the delay. Consequently, this application as well as appeal do not survive for further consideration as the same are without any merit and, accordingly, dismissed. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge Judge SRINAGAR 12.08.2025 Ram Murti