Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Punam Kumari Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 2 May, 2025
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, Aravind Kumar
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5722/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-01-2025
in IA No. 46/2019 in SA No. 502/2018 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna]
PUNAM KUMARI SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION)
(IA No. 49183/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 02-05-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
Mr. Shahrukh Ahmad, Adv.
Ms. Poorvi Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Application for condonation of delay which has been allowed by
the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings.
2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
special leave petition for the simple reason that the High Court
Date: 2025.05.07
17:26:45 IST
Reason:
while exercising the discretionary relief by condoning the delay
1
SLP (C) No. 5722/2025
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘1963 Act’) has found sufficient and cogent reasons has been
offered by the applicants. The Courts while examining the plea for
condonation of delay, would not consider the length of delay, but
the cause shown for such delay. If the cause shown is sufficient,
irrespective of the period of delay, same would be condoned. On the
other hand, if the cause shown would not fall within the definition
of sufficient cause, irrespective of the length of delay, same
would not be condoned.
3. At this juncture, we are reminded of the judgment of this
Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 2 SCC 107 whereunder this
Court held:
“3. The legislature has conferred the power to
condone delay XXX in the hierarchy. And such a
liberal approach is adopted on principle as it
is realized that: –
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to
benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in
a meritorious matter being thrown out at
the very threshold and cause of justice
being defeated. As against this when delay
is condoned the highest that can happen is
that a cause would be decided on merits
after hearing the parties.
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained”
does not mean that a pedantic approach
should be made. Why not every hour’s delay
every second’s delay? The doctrine must be
applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each
other, cause of substantial justice
deserves to be preferred for the other side
cannot claim to have vested right in
2
SLP (C) No. 5722/2025
injustice being done because of a non-
deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is
occasioned deliberately, or on account of
culpable negligence, or on account of mala
fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit
by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a
serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is
respected not on account of its power to
legalize injustice on technical grounds but
because it is capable of removing injustice
and is expected to do so.
4. No litigant would stand to benefit by approaching the Courts
belatedly. In the instant case, when the facts on hand are
examined by applying the principles enunciated by this Court
referred to supra, it would emerge from the records that the cause
shown for delay is that the applicant not having been made a party
to the suit and in the appellate proceedings and also feigning,
ignorance about knowledge of judgment and decree or in other words
it was contended that the applicant had no knowledge about the
impugned judgment and decree. Hence, applicant sought for condoning
the delay in filing second appeal. It was also contended that
plaintiffs being conversant with the fact that the applicant was a
necessary and proper party to the suit, yet they had not arrayed
the applicants as party to the proceedings in the original suit as
well as in the appeal before the High Court. In this factual
background the High Court has accepted the cause shown for delay in
filing the second appeal by condoning the delay. Hence, it would
not detain us too long to reject the present special leave petition
and also for the simple reason that undisputably Public Works
3
SLP (C) No. 5722/2025
Department (road construction department) was made a party and only
in the execution proceedings or in other words was impleaded as
additional judgment debtor. This Court in order to ascertain as to
whether at the first instance namely even prior to the institution
of suit while issuing legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 plaintiff had got issued notice to the
applicant we had extended an opportunity to the petitioner herein
to place the same on record. However, it has not seen the light of
the day. In the absence thereof and in view of the fact that
applicant before the High Court in second appeal was neither a
defendant nor the respondent before the trial Court and the
appellate Court respectively seems to have shown good and
sufficient cause for not having filed second appeal on time. Hence,
we have no hesitation to hold that the delay that has been condoned
by the High Court is for just and sufficient cause as envisaged
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. The said discretion which has been exercised by the High Court
is based on sound principles of law and the facts obtained in the
instant case would not call for interference at the hands of this
Court. Hence the special leave petition is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (NAND KISHOR)
AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
4
[ad_1]
Source link