Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 932
- Decided
- 29 November 2024
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to condone the inordinate delay because no sufficient cause arising before the limitation period was shown, and therefore dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a second appeal before the High Court challenging a judgment that dismissed a suit concerning 1,300 hectares of government land. The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 5 years, 10 months, and 16 days, which the High Court refused to condone, citing lack of sufficient cause. The State argued that the delay was explained and not intentional, but the Supreme Court examined the legal standards for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, 1963. Relying on precedents, the Court held that "sufficient cause" must arise before the limitation period expires and that post‑expiry events cannot justify the delay. Finding no adequate explanation and noting administrative negligence, the Court upheld the High Court’s refusal, dismissed the Special Leave Petition, imposed costs, and directed the State to streamline its legal machinery and penalize responsible officials.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay of over five years in filing the second appeal.
- What constitutes "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether delay occurring after the expiry of the limitation period can be considered sufficient cause.
- Whether the State can be directed to penalize officials responsible for administrative delay.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's decision under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Appellant-State challenged the High Court judgment dismissing the second appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years holding that the delay was not explained satisfactorily. Headnotes† Delay – Refusal to condone – When justified – Delay of 5 by the appellant-State – Not condoned by High Court, appeal dismissed – Challenged: Held: High Court rightly refused to condone the delay – Enormous delay occurred at every stage, from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court till the date of filing
Subjects
DelayCondonationLimitationSecond appealInordinate delay of 5 yearsEnormous delay"sufficient cause"Delay not explained satisfactorilyNo plausible reasonCosts imposedDiscretion to condone the delayNegligence/inaction/lack of bona fidesCallous/lackadaisical attitude of Government officialsLoss to Government exchequerValuable Government landsPenalizeFix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned
Judgment
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1280 : 2024 INSC 932
State of Madhya Pradesh
v.
Ramkumar Choudhary
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 48636 of 2024)
29 November 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant-State challenged the High Court judgment dismissing
the second appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years holding
that the delay was not explained satisfactorily.
Headnotes†
Delay – Refusal to condone – When justified – Delay of 5
years in filing the second appeal by the appellant-State – Not
condoned by High Court, appeal dismissed – Challenged:
Held: High Court rightly refused to condone the delay – Enormous
delay occurred at every stage, from the date of receipt of the
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court till the date of filing
the second appeal by the State – When a case is filed beyond
limitation, the petitioner 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 – While
a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing
an appeal but when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads
sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause
must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising
before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal
within time – No event or circumstance arising after the expiry
of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause – Enormous
delay of 1788 days in filing the second appeal was not explained
satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no
plausible reason was put forth by the State – Petition dismissed,
costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the State.[Paras 4, 5, 7, 8]
Delay – In filing petitions/appeals/applications – Callous,
lackadaisical attitude of Government officials – Loss to
Government exchequer – Officers responsible for delay/
lapses to be penalized – Enormous delay of 1788 days in filing
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1281
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary
the second appeal by the appellant-State involving valuable
Government lands:
Held: State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues,
offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal/Courts,
etc. – States to fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned and
penalize them, who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses,
etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government.
[Para 6]
Delay – Condonation – “sufficient cause” – Interpretation:
Held: The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised
judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case –
‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence,
inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. [Para 5]
Case Law Cited
Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi [2021] 9 SCR 476 : 2021 SCC
Online SC 1260; Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram [2023] 1 SCR 449 :
2023 SCC Online SC 92; Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v.
State of Gujarat [1981] 2 SCR 509 : AIR 1981 SC 733 – relied on.
List of Acts
Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Delay; Condonation; Limitation; Second appeal; Inordinate delay of
5 years; Enormous delay; “sufficient cause”; Delay not explained
satisfactorily; No plausible reason; Costs imposed; Discretion
to condone the delay; Negligence/inaction/lack of bona fides;
Callous/lackadaisical attitude of Government officials; Loss to
Government exchequer; Valuable Government lands; Penalize;
Fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
Diary No. 48636 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2024 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in SA No. 2895 of 2019
1282 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G., Sarad Kumar Singhania,
Ms. Samridhi S. Jain, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. This Special Leave Petition is filed by the petitioner – State of
Madhya Pradesh against the judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 in Second
Appeal No. 2895 of 2019, whereby, the High Court dismissed the
appeal on the ground that it was filed with inordinate delay of 5 years
10 months and 16 days and no satisfactory reason was adduced
for the same.
2. We have heard Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Deputy
Advocate General appearing for the petitioner, who submitted that
the delay caused in filing the second appeal was well explained
by the State and the same was not intentional. However, the High
Court erroneously dismissed the second appeal on the ground of
delay, without considering the merits of the case, wherein, valuable
Government lands measuring total extent of 1,300 Hectare situated
at Village Majhganwa, Tehsil and District Katni, were involved. He
further submitted that though the trial Court passed the well-reasoned
judgment dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein, the
first Appellate Court reversed the same and allowed the appeal in
favour of the respondent, thereby affecting the right of the petitioner
in respect of the said lands.
3. It appears from the materials on record that originally, the respondent
filed Civil Suit No. 79A/2011 before the Civil Judge, Class-2, Katni2
seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of lands
in Survey Nos. 107, 108, 115, respectively measuring an extent of 0.36,
0.40, 0.54 hectare situated at village Majhganwa, Katni, stating that
that he has been in possession of the said lands since 1970 and has
been given leasehold right by the Settlement Officer in the year 1989.
By judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013, the trial Court dismissed
1 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
2 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the trial Court”
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1283
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary
the said suit. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred Civil
Appeal No. 25A/2013 which was allowed by the 3rd Additional District
Judge, Katni3 by judgment and decree dated 21.08.2014. Stating that
the land in Khasra No. 107 admeasuring 0.36 hectare was registered
in the name of Bhu-Dan Board, Government of M.P. and the land
in Khasra Nos. 108 and 115 was reserved for Charokhar, Grass,
Beed or Chara as per Nistar Patrak; and the respondent was not in
possession of the said lands and leasehold right was not given to
him by any settlement officer and no consent was also given in this
regard, the State preferred Second Appeal No.2895 of 2019 along with
an Interlocutory Application No. 13106 of 2019 seeking to condone
the delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days in filing the same. The
High Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the second
appeal by the judgment impugned herein.
4. Evidently, there was enormous delay occurred at every stage i.e.,
from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court to till the date of filing the second appeal by the State. The
judgement was passed by the First Appellate Court on 21.08.2014
and the same was communicated by the Government Advocate
representing the State to the Collector, only on 25.08.2015 i.e.,
after a delay of one year. Causing 3 months’ delay, by letter dated
10.12.2015, the Collector informed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, about the passing of the judgment against the State
and preferring a second appeal against the same. Thereafter, the
Law Department took three years’ time and gave permission for filing
appeal on 26.10.2018, which was sent to the Collector on 31.10.2018.
Based on the said opinion, after preparation of the appeal papers,
the State filed the second appeal only on 18.10.2019.
Hence, there was inordinate delay of 1788 days occasioned in
preferring the second appeal, but the same was not properly explained
by the State.
5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the
Court beyond limitation, the petitioner 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
3 Hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court”
1284 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi,4 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. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in
Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram5 wherein, it was held as follows:
“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.”
14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the
High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the
delay condonation application of the present appellant.”
4 [2021] 9 SCR 476 : 2021 SCC Online SC 1260
5 2023 SCC Online SC 92
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1285
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary
Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay
has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances
of each case and that, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be
liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is
attributed to the party.
5.1. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through
his legal heir,6 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:
“24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very
clear that we are not going to look into the merits
of the matter as long as we are not convinced that
sufficient cause has been made out for condonation
of such a long and inordinate delay.
25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private
party or a State or Union of India when it comes to
condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If
the litigant chooses to approach the court long after
the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant
provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and
say that no prejudice would be caused to either side
by the delay being condoned. This litigation between
the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in
2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till
date the respondent has not been able to reap the
fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice
if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days
and once again ask the respondent to undergo the
rigmarole of the legal proceedings.
26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter
which the court must take into consideration while
considering whether the delay should be condoned or
6 2024 INSC 262 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
1286 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants,
it appears that they want to fix their own period of
limitation for instituting the proceedings for which
law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is
held that a party has lost his right to have the matter
considered on merits because of his own inaction for
a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate
delay and in such circumstances of the case, he
cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice
deserves to be preferred as against the technical
considerations. While considering the 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 party seeking condonation. It is only if
the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the
opposition of the other side is equally balanced that
the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter
for the purpose of condoning the delay.
27. We are of the view that the question of limitation
is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of
limitation are based on the principles of sound public
policy and principles of equity. We should not keep
the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of
the respondent for indefinite period of time to be
determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.
xxx xxx xxx
34. In view of the aforesaid, we have reached to the
conclusion that the High Court committed no error
much less any error of law in passing the impugned
order. Even otherwise, the High Court was exercising
its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been
said that delay should not be excused as a matter
of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to
cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants
have failed to prove that they were reasonably
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1287
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary
diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test
for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case.
36. For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails
and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.”
Applying the above legal proposition to the facts of the present
case, we are of the opinion that the High Court correctly refused
to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by observing that
such inordinate delay was not explained satisfactorily, no sufficient
cause was shown for the same, and no plausible reason was put
forth by the State. Therefore, we are inclined to reject this petition
at the threshold.
6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred
in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical
attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery.
Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling
the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/appeals
well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in
merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss
will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is
one such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned
in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the
officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government
lands were involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline
the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion,
filing of cases before the Tribunal/Courts, etc., fix the responsibility
on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are
responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of
the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be
followed by all the States scrupulously.
7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore
or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever
there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a
private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from
the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years
or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the
period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation
has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within
1288 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till
the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what
came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between
the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait
until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows
the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the
appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of
some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was
not possible to file the appeal within time. 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).
8. Accordingly, we dismiss this Special Leave Petition with costs of
Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the State within a period of two
weeks from today with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and
file proof thereof. If the said amount, as directed, is not deposited
by the State, the Registry shall take necessary steps for recovery
of the same, in accordance with law.
9. We have deemed it necessary to impose costs to send a stern
message that the States must not misuse the Supreme Court’s time
by filing appeals against the well-reasoned and conscious decisions
rendered by the High Courts without proper grounds.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Special Leave Petition dismissed
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Delay"Sign in to search