Sr. No. 25 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 3770/2024 in LPA No. 165/2024 Shalin Kabra & ors. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Mr. Maha Majeed, Assisting counsel V/s Bashir Ahmad Sanie …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AJEEM, JUDGE ORDER 08.08.2025 01. The applicants seek condonation of 794 days’ delay in filing the above titled Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 27.04.2022 read with order dated 14.02.2024 passed in CCP(S) No. 430/2020 arising out of SWP No. 233/2010. The condonation of delay is sought on two main grounds that examination of the matter and consideration of question of filing of appeal at various level led to consumption of time. 02. The applicants have stated that after having received copy of the order, they were required to collect records from the subordinate office and also to obtain legal advice from the Department of law and justice, which considered the matter on merits and decided to challenge the judgment, for 2 which, sanction to file LPA was given by the Law Department. Thereafter learned senior counsel took up the matter with the applicants so that LPA is drafted and filed before the Court, who also took some time for drafting and filing the LPA. The aforesaid facts reveal that a considerable period of time was consumed from one office to another in finalizing and taking decision in the matter. It is submitted that the delay is due to unavoidable office formalities which was neither deliberate nor intentional but for the reasons beyond their control. These reasons would constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 03. The contention of the applicants is that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but for the reasons beyond their control and it is submitted by the applicant that when technical considerations and substantial justice will be pitted against each other, therefore, substantial justice must be given preference. Lastly, it is submitted that the if delay is not condoned, a strong case of the applicants on merits will suffer. 04. The non-applicant has filed his objections in which he has submitted that the applicants have failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. They were required to explain each and every day’s delay which has not been explained by them. The applicants have approached this Court in a casual and mechanical manner and neither 3 acted with due diligence nor explained the delay, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed at the very outset. 05. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered in case titled Union of India & anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr. reported as 2024 AIR SC 1884 in which, 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 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.” 06. Similarly, 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:- 4 “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.” 07. The averments made in the application do not provide any cogent explanation for delay. The applicants have also failed to explain each and every day’s delay and provide sufficient cause for explaining the delay. The only ground, 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 order in the case was passed in presence of learned counsel for both the sides on 27.04.2022 and there is no explanation as to why it took so much time for obtaining sanction. 08. The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again in various judgments has refused to condone the delay where there is 5 no satisfactory explanation for the same provided. 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 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. 6 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”. 09. 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 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’. 10. In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., reported as (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as under:- 7 “12. In G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer, Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, has opined thus: “14. The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from F all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice e and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.” 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 application(s) 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid preposition of law and the fact that the applicants have filed this application after inordinate delay of 794 days without explaining sufficient 8 cause, therefore, this application is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (SHAHZAD AJEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge Judge SRINAGAR 08.08.2025 Ram Murti