2026:JHHC:24674-DB 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 576 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms & Registration Department, Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi 5. The Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi 6. The Circle Officer, Hehal, Ranchi ….. Appellants Versus 1. Laxmi Devi, W/o Late Jugesh Oraon 2. Amit Kr. Kachhap, S/o Late Jugesh Oraon 3. Deepti Kachhap, D/o Late Jugesh Oraon 4. Subhadra Kachhap, D/o Late Jugesh Oraon All are R/o Akarha Chowk, near Bara Talab, Purani Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants: Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA For the Respondents: - ----- 02/17.08.2026 I.A. No. 6562 of 2025: 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-IA, for the applicants/appellants. 2. The present interlocutory application seeks condonation of delay of 284 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 3. In paragraph Nos. 4 to 9 of the present interlocutory application, it is cursorily pleaded that this delay was occasioned on account of movement of files from table to table and officer to officer. This does not constitute any sufficient cause. 4. Based upon such routine and unverifiable averments, delay of 284 days cannot be condoned. 5. In Postmaster General and Others Vs. In Living Media India Limited and Another, reported in (2012)3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay cannot be condoned 2026:JHHC:24674-DB 2 | P a g e where the Government Department or the persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter and taking appropriate steps. The Court has held that in the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, the delay cannot be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government seeks condonation. The claim of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several noting cannot be invariably accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. It was reiterated that the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 6. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D), through his LR, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 489, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even the length of the delay is a relevant factor that the Court must consider when dealing with applications for condonation of delay. The Court noted that, from the tenor or approach of the appellants, it appeared that they sought to fix their own period of limitation for instituting proceedings for which the law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost its right to have the matter considered on the merits because of its own inaction for a long time, it cannot be presumed that the delay was not deliberate, and in such circumstances the party cannot be heard to plead that substantial justice deserves to be preferred against technical considerations. 7. The Court also held that, when considering a 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 parties seeking condonation. It is 2026:JHHC:24674-DB 3 | P a g e only if the cause assigned by the litigant is sufficient and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring the merits of the matter into aid for the purpose of condoning the delay. Further, the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and equity. 8. The Hon’ble Court held that the ‘Sword of Damocles’ cannot be kept hanging over the head of the respondent for an indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. The Court noted that in a plethora of decisions, it has been said that the delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. Where the appellants failed to demonstrate that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter, the delay cannot be condoned. If it is found that the delay in filing the appeal has arisen due to the party's own negligence and casual attitude, the delay cannot be condoned on the grounds of doing substantial justice. 9. In Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, the Hon’ble Supreme Court conveyed an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delay should 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, which also equally suffers 2026:JHHC:24674-DB 4 | P a g e the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Courts ought not give a legitimising effect to such a callous attitude of the State authorities or their instrumentalities and should remain extra cautious if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigation, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at a later stage. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say, if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, Courts are obligated to ensure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law. 12. Applying the above principles to the present case, the present interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. 2026:JHHC:24674-DB 5 | P a g e 13. Mr. Yogesh Modi argued that the appellants have a good case on merits and therefore, the delay should be condoned and an opportunity be granted to the State by entertaining the appeal. 14. Unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay, there is no question of considering the merits of the appeal. In any event, considering the submission made, we note that this is a case where the respondent-plaintiff has succeeded in the suit and obtained the relief of continuation of the Jamabandi Entry in its favour. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal for default. C.M.P. No. 622 of 2018 filed for restoration was also dismissed for default on 23.09.2022. Thus, neither the appeal nor the restoration application was pursued diligently. 15. In view of two concurrent orders, we cannot accept the contention that the delay should be condoned because, according to the appellants, they have a good case on merits. 16. For all the above reasons, the present interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of 284 days in instituting the accompanying appeal is dismissed. L.P.A. No. 576 of 2025: 17. As a consequence, the present appeal will not survive and is accordingly disposed of. 18. If there are any other IAs pending, they will also not survive and are hereby disposed of. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 17.08.2026 Sandeep/Vikas/ Uploaded on 20.08.2026