STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1280, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[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