“Sufficient Cause” U/S. 5 Limitation Act Cannot Be Liberally Construed Merely Because Applicant Is A Government Department: J&K & L HC

The court observed that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by a statute and although Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for an extension of the prescribed period of limitation in certain cases, an applicant seeking such an extension is required to satisfy the Court that there has been sufficient and plausible cause for not preferring the application/appeal/petition within the prescribed period.

In the instant application accompanied by a Review Petition, the Union of India sought review of order passed by a single-judge bench of the Court for condonation of delay of 65 days.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “The application in hand, with aforesaid contentions stated and explanation offered seemingly has been filed with an impression that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ would receive a liberal construction in favour of the applicants herein being a Department of Government, however, it is manifest from a plain reading of the application that the explanation offered therein is neither plausible nor by any stretch of imagination sufficient warranting acceptance. The explanation offered in the application per-se is casual and cryptic and even the affidavit accompanying the application in support thereof is having filled in blanks and manifestly a stereotype one”.

Senior Panel Counsel Rohan Nanda appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ravinder Sharma appeared for the respondent.

In the pertinent matter, in the original writ petition the petitioner (herein the respondent) had sought appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her husband who had died during the course of employment.

The Court while disposing of the petition directed the respondents to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner expeditiously within a period of four weeks.

However, the counsel for the respondents apprised the Court that having taken cognizance of the fact that said appointment had been delayed by them and that respondents had accorded relaxation in the upper age limit, it was decided that the petitioner shall be offered appointment on compassionate.

While referring to P. K. Ramachadran v. State of Kerala the bench further noted in the order, “Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to law on the subject of limitation which is no more res-integra and stands settled that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by a statute and although Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for an extension of the prescribed period of limitation in certain cases, however, an applicant seeking such an extension is required to satisfy the Court that there has been sufficient and plausible cause for not preferring the application/appeal/petition within the prescribed period. A reference to the following judgments being relevant herein passed by the Apex Court would also be advantageous”.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Jagjeet Kour