HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM 7509/2023 RP 81/2023 in [WP(C) 2330/2021] Bashir Ahmad and another … Petitioners/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate V/s Government of J&K and others … Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 17-02-2025 1. Through the medium of instant application being CM No. 7509/2023, the petitioners/applicants herein seek condonation of delay of 85 days in filing review petition (RP 81/2023) arising out of judgment dated 8.8.2023 passed in WP(C) 2330/2021. 2. The contents of the application being relevant and significant for its determination, are, as such, extracted and reproduced hereunder: 3. That after passing of the Judgment dated 8th of August, 2023 by this Hon'ble Court, the applicants/ Review Petitioners immediately approached the revenue authorities concerned for granting them the information and record with regard to compensation received by their predecessor-in-interest in relation to land covered under Survey No. 766 situate at Zewan, Srinagar. The revenue authorities took their own time and ultimately provided some photocopies without any covering letter or seal and, after lapse of considerable period of time, the Land Acquisition Section in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, in terms of letter dated 7th of October, 2023, handed over the requisite information/ record to the applicants/ Review Petitioners. 4. That, thereafter, the applicants/ Review Petitioners consulted their Lawyer and handed over to him the aforesaid documents, whereafter, the Lawyer took some time in preparing the Review Petition. The delay occasioned in filing the accompanying Review Petition is only because the revenue authorities took their own time in providing the requisite documents to the applicants/ Review Petitioners. RP 81/2023 Page 2 of 4 5. That the delay, if any caused in filing the aforesaid Review Petition, is neither intentional nor deliberate, but only because of the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the delay, if any, caused in filing the Review Petition deserves to be condoned and Review Petition deserves to be taken on board for its disposal on merits. 6. That in case the delay is not condoned and the Review Petition is not taken on Board and decided on merits, the applicants/ Review Petitioners will suffer an irreparable loss/ injury which, later on, cannot be compensated by any method whatsoever and, more so, the same will result in failure of justice. 7. That the applicants/ Review Petitioners, on merits, have a strong case in their favour and are sure to succeed in the Review Petition, therefore, the delay, if any, caused in filing the accompanying Review Petition deserves to be condoned and the same deserves to be disposed of on merits. 8. That this application is supported by a duly sworn in Affidavit. 3. Before proceedings to advert to the application in hand, it would be significant to refer to the law in regard to the condonation of delay. 4. It is established that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and although section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, however, an applicant seeking such extension is required to satisfy the court that there has been sufficient cause for not preferring the application/appeal within the prescribed period. The Apex Court in case titled as P. K. Ramachadran v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 has at para 6 held as under: “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. No costs.” RP 81/2023 Page 3 of 4 The Apex Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswam vs. Bhargavi Amma, 2008 (8) SCC 321, at para 13 (iii), besides others, enunciated the following principle qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act: “(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.” Further, the Apex Court in case titled as Office of the Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 2012 (3) SCC 563 has referred to para 29 of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 488, in which following has been observed: “29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position and principles of law and reverting back to the case in hand, admittedly the judgment under review has been passed on 8.8.2023 in presence of counsel for the petitioners applicants herein. A closer examination of the aforesaid contents of the application, however, would reveal that it did not spell out as to what prevented the petitioners applicants herein to seek review of the said judgment immediately thereafter, instead the delay is attributed by the petitioners applicants herein to the revenue RP 81/2023 Page 4 of 4 authorities who are stated to have been approached by the petitioners applicants for furnishing them some information relating to the land covered under Survey no. 766 situated at Zewan, Srinagar, yet it is not spelt out as to when the said information was sought, so is also not detailed out as to when the petitioners applicants consulted their lawyer after receiving the said information from the revenue authorities on 7.10.2023, and that how much time did their counsel consume in preparing the review petition. As is manifest from above, the application in hand seemingly has been filed with an impression that in seeking condonation of delay the expression “sufficient cause” would receive a liberal construction in favour of the petitioners applicants. However, as has been noticed above, it is manifest that the explanation offered by the petitioners/applicants herein cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be either sufficient, plausible or cogent. 6. For the aforesaid reasons the instant application for condonation of delay is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with accompanying review petition. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Srinagar 17-02-2025 N Ahmad Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes Nissar Ahmad Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.03.2025 17:13