Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi on 16 December, 2021
In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy
Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by
this Court that even though limitation may harshly
affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with
all its rigour when prescribed by statute.
Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram on 31 January, 2023
A reference
was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay
6
Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein,
it was held as follows:
Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013
"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14
SCC 81] while rejecting an application for
condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause
has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:
"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 bona fide 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."
Ajit Singh Thakur Singh And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 1981
No event or circumstance arising
after the expiry of limitation can constitute such
sufficient cause. There may be events or
circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation
which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But
that the limitation has been allowed to expire without
the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause
arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh
Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1981 SC 733)."
Jaijeet Acharya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 November, 2021
2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State/appellants submits that after passing of the impugned order
on 03.11.2025 in WPS No. 6405 of 2021 (Jaijeet Acharya &
Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), opinion has been
sought by the Department of Forest from the Office of Advocate
General for filing an appeal vide letter dated 27.11.2025,
thereafter, on 05.12.2025 opinion was delivered by the Office of
Advocate General for filing writ appeal against the impugned
order and vide letter dated 14.01.2026, the Department of Law
and Legislative Affairs accorded its permission for filing writ
appeal before this Court and on 16.01.2026, the Officer-In-
Charge of the case approached the Office of Advocate General
for preferring appeal against the order under challenge and in
turn, he was directed to bring the entire relevant records of the
case and thereafter documents and information with respect to
the case has been collected and the instant appeal has been
filed before this Hon'ble Court, however, some delay was
occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities
and working of the Government machinery. He further submits
that the State Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at
times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected
delay, therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing
4
the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is
bonafide and not deliberate nor intentional.
Union Of India vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) ... on 13 September, 2019
In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir, 2024 INSC
262, wherein, one of us (J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a
member, after referring to various decisions on
the issue, it was in unequivocal terms observed
by this Court that delay should not be excused as
a matter of generosity and rendering substantial
justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite
party. The relevant passage of the same is
profitably extracted below:
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramkumar Choudhary on 8 January, 2020
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present
case, in the light of aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Postmaster General (supra)
and Ramkumar Choudhary (supra), it is evident that
Government departments are under a special obligation to
discharge their duties with due diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot
be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by
11
Government entities. The law casts its protection equally upon
all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage
upon a select few.
Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs. vs Karnataka Housing Board on 24 August, 2022
7. Very recently on 12.09.2025, the Supreme Court in the matter of
Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board &
Ors., 2025 INSC 1104 categorically held that the High Courts
ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of
State authorities or its 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.
1