State Of J&K & Ors vs Mohmad Maqbool Sofi & Ors

Supreme Court31 July 2009Tarun Chatterjee · R.M. Lodha

SCC(2009) 15 SCC 177

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a government body seeks condonation of delay in filing an appeal, delay caused by the time necessary for the file to be routed through different departments of the State for the purpose of obtaining approval to file the appeal constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of the law governing condonation of delay.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

(NON-REPORTABLE)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5149 OF 2009(Arising out of SLP)No.11105 of 2008)

State of J & K & Ors. ----AppellantsVersus

Mohmad Maqbool Sofi & Ors. ----Respondents

JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24th

of July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Jammu &

Kashmir at Srinagar in LPA No.254/2006, by which

the High Court had rejected the application for

condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent

Appeal and consequent thereupon, the appeal was

dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. We have carefully examined the application filed by

the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the appellant2

herein, and the statements made thereunder and

also the impugned order. After thorough

examination of the application for condonation of

delay and the impugned order, we are of the view

that the State of Jammu and Kashmir had made

out sufficient cause for not filing the Letters Patent

Appeal within the period of limitation. It is not in

dispute that there has been a delay of 97 days in

filing the appeal at the instance of the State of

Jammu and Kashmir. It is well settled that for the

purpose of filing an appeal, the file has to be rooted

through different departments of the State which

require some time to take a final decision whether

the Letters Patent Appeal shall be filed against the

order of the learned Single Judge.

4. That being the position, we set aside the impugned

order and restore the Letters Patent Appeal to its

original number. The High Court is now requested

to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal within three

months from the date of supply of a copy of this 3

order to it after giving hearing to the parties and

after passing a reasoned order in accordance with

law.

5. When the LPA will be restored, it will be open to the

parties to apply for appropriate interim order before the

High Court and if such application is filed, the High

Court is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as

possible.

6. The impugned order is thus set aside. The appeal is

allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no

order as to costs.

...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ..................... ......J. July 31, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free