Facts
The Appellant, a 69-year-old resident of Janjgir-Champa, filed a writ appeal challenging the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by a Single Judge in WP S No. 1950/2024.
Source reference: para. 2The underlying writ petition had been dismissed by the Single Judge.
Source reference: para. 2Along with the appeal, the Appellant filed I.A. No. 01/2026, seeking condonation of a 90-day delay in preferring the writ appeal.
Source reference: para. 1, 3No one appeared on behalf of the Appellant to press the application or the appeal during the hearing.
Source reference: para. 1Issues
Whether the Appellant provided sufficient cause or a plausible explanation to condone the 90-day delay in filing the writ appeal under the doctrine of limitation.
Source reference: para. 3, 7Law Applied
The Court applied the doctrine of "delay and laches," establishing that stale claims or those barred by limitation should generally be rejected unless a "continuing wrong" is demonstrated.
Source reference: para. 5It relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652, which held that service-related claims must be filed within a reasonable time and that delay renders a claim stale.
Source reference: para. 5Further, it applied C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115, which posits that representations regarding stale matters do not revive a dead claim or furnish a fresh cause of action, and that courts should not exercise misplaced sympathy to encourage indiscipline or financial burdens on the exchequer.
Source reference: para. 6Reasoning
The Division Bench observed that the Appellant failed to offer any "plausible explanation" or "cogent reason" for the inordinate delay of 90 days in the application for condonation.
Source reference: para. 3The Court noted the respondents' contention that the appeal was barred by laches and lacked any justificatory grounds.
Source reference: para. 4Aligning with the cited precedents, the Court reasoned that since the Appellant did not meet the legal threshold for explaining the delay, the discretionary power to condone limitation could not be exercised, as the claim had become stale.
Source reference: para. 7-8Holding
The Court held that the delay was not explained with cogent reasons and therefore refused to condone the 90-day period.
Consequently, I.A. No. 01/2026 was rejected, and the writ appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Source reference: para. 8Original Court PDF
Awadhesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026:CGHC:10944-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in