Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ut Of J&K & Ors vs Jamsheed Ahmad Khan & Ors on 22 August, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 13.08.2025
Pronounced on : 22.08.2025
CM No. 7407/2024 in
RP No. 83/2024
UT of J&K & Ors. ... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, Advocate
Vs.
Jamsheed Ahmad Khan & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M.A Beigh, Advocate with
Mr. B.A Zargar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per- Javed Iqbal Wani-J’.
1. By this Order, we propose to dispose of application being CM
NO. 7407/2024, wherein condonation of delay is being
sought in filing review petition being RP No. 83/2024 arising
out of WP(C) No. 296/2024.
2. The averments made in para 2 & 3 of the application in hand
being relevant and significant for its disposal in extenso are
extracted and re-produced hereunder for the sake of brevity
and convenience;
2. “That, after having received the copy of the
impugned order/judgment passed by this Court as passed
in the relevant matter, the matter remained under
examination in the Administrative Department and the
2
mater was examined by the respondents in light of the
records. In the process, the respondents were required to
collect the records from various offices and also to obtain
legal advice from the Department of Law, Justice and
Parliamentary Affairs. Sanction to file review petition was
given by the law department by virtue of communication
dated 18.10.2024 (Friday), which was received on
21.10.2024 (Monday). The examination of the matter and
consideration of the question of filing of the Review
Petition at various levels obviously led to consumption of
time. The learned counsel took up the matter with the
Department for furnishing the requisite information along
with certified copy of the judgment dated 28.08.2024.
Accordingly, the certified copy of the judgment was
received on 30.10.2024 from the Registry. After receiving
the relevant records, the learned counsel requested the
department to provide records of SWP No. 498/2012 titled
Altaf Hussain Wani Vs. State & Ors and Ghulam Hassan
Zargar Vs. UT of J&K. Since the records dated back to 2012
took some days to trace the record. Accordingly, the
records were provided to the learned counsel on
08.11.2024. Thus, the delay has not been caused in filing of
the Review Petition deliberately, willfully or intentionally.
3. That it is submitted that the matter covered by the
Review Petition involves very important questions of law,
which require authoritative adjudication of this Court.
Thus having regard to facts and circumstances of the case,
the delay in filing the review petition deserves to be
condoned so that a meritorious case is not thrown out
without examining the case on merits.
3. Objections to the application have been filed by the non-
applicant/respondent 1, wherein the application is being
opposed on the premise that the same does not spell out
“sufficient cause” for condonation of delay.
3
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
4. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be
profitable to mention here that it is settled that law of
limitation has to be applied with all its rigor prescribed by a
statute and although the Limitation Act does provide for
extension of period of limitation in certain cases, however,
the appellant/applicant seeking such extension is required to
satisfy the Court that there has been sufficient and plausible
cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application
within the prescribed period.
5. A reference hereunder to the following judgment of the Apex
Court would also be advantageous being relevant herein.
The Apex Court in case titled as “Perumon
Bhagvathy Devaswam Vs. Bhargavi Amman
reported in 2008(8) SCC 321″ has at para 13(iii) besides
other principles qua an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act held as under:-
“(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the
length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory
explanation”.
The Apex Court in case titled as “Office of the Chief
Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Mewdia
India & Anr. Reported in 2012(3) SCC 563″ has at
para 29 observed as under;
“(29). It needs no restatement at our hands that the object
for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy
4fixing 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.”
The Apex Court further in case titled as “State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors Vs. Bherulal reported in 2020 (10)
SCC 654″, has at paras 3 and 5 laid down following: –
“3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government
inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep
on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time
when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway
was given to the Government [LAO v. Katiji]. This position
is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in
Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3
SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:-
27) 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.
28) 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
5advance 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 11 available.
The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody
including the Government.
29) 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.
30) 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.” Eight years hence the judgment
is still unheeded.
5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded
that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is
to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will
succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which
6
can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take
away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to
condone the delay.”
The Apex Court further in case titled Sheo Raj Singh
(Deceased) through Lrs. and Others Vs. Union of
India and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
1278, has at para 29 held as under:-
” 29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there
cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to
ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the
State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to
technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions
notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay
being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of
discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of
the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the
explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or
an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the
shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain
other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the
explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the
courts must distinguish between an „explanation‟ and an
„excuse‟. An „explanation‟ is designed to give someone all of
the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps
clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows
the person to point out that something that has happened
is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must
however be taken to distinguish an „explanation‟ from an
„excuse‟. Although people tend to see „explanation‟ and
„excuse‟ as the same thing and struggle to find out the
difference between the two, there is a distinction which,
though fine, is real. An „excuse‟ is often offered by a person
7to deny responsibility and consequences when under
attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as
just an „excuse‟ would imply that the explanation proffered
is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula
that caters to all situations 9 and, therefore, each case for
condonation of delay based on existence or absence of
sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this
stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not
explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation
of long delays to safeguard public interest from those
hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a
meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for
adjudication.”
6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position and principles of law
and reverting back to the case in hand, the perusal of the
contents of the application referred in the preceding paras
manifestly reveal that the petitioners/applicants have
applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 29.10.2024
and received on 30.10.2024, despite the fact that judgment
have had been passed on 28.08.2024 that too in presence of
the counsel for the applicants herein and no explanation
worth the name has been offered in the application in hand
as to why certified copy was applied for after a period of
more than two months although the judgment have had been
uploaded on the website of the Court immediately after its
passing by the Court.
7. A closer examination of the application in hand also tends to
show that the applicants herein even after the grant of
sanction by the Law Department for filing of the review
petition have consciously allowed the prescribed period of
8
limitation to expire at their own leisure while claiming to
have been doing things necessary for filing of the review
petition and have now filed the instant application with an
impression that in seeking condonation of delay, the
averments made in the application constitute sufficient
cause and plausible explanation and that same as such,
would receive a liberal construction in favour of the
applicants herein being a Government Department.
8. Viewed thus for what has been observed, considered and
analysed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that
the explanation offered by the applicants herein in the
instant application for condonation of delay is neither
“plausible” nor “sufficient”.
9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed along with
accompanying review petition No. 83/2024.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI) (JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
22.08.2025
"S.Nuzhat"
Whether the order is speaking Yes
Whether the order is reporting Yes