The Jharkhand High Court has held that the nationwide Covid-19 lockdown period, as mandated by the Supreme Court’s suo moto order, validly excuses delay in filing restoration applications for writ petitions dismissed for default. This ruling reaffirms the judicial recognition of pandemic-related disruptions as force majeure in procedural timelines, offering critical relief to litigants caught in administrative delays.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, seven individuals including elderly sons and widows of deceased landowners from Village Singhitali, Garhwa, had filed W.P.(C) No. 5071 of 2018 seeking redressal of a land dispute against respondents Madan Mohan Singh and Kameshwar Singh. The writ petition was dismissed for default on 18.10.2019 due to non-compliance with an order dated 20.09.2019, which required the petitioners to file a compliance report or take further steps in the matter.
Key Facts
- W.P.(C) No. 5071 of 2018 was originally filed in 2018 before the Jharkhand High Court.
- On 20.09.2019, the Court issued an order directing the petitioners to comply with certain procedural requirements.
- The petitioners failed to comply, leading to dismissal of the writ petition on 18.10.2019 for default.
- The petitioners did not file a restoration application immediately after dismissal.
- The restoration application was filed on 15.03.2022, over two years after dismissal.
- The petitioners attributed the delay to the Covid-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown.
Procedural History
- 2018: W.P.(C) No. 5071 of 2018 filed before the Jharkhand High Court.
- 20.09.2019: Court issued direction for compliance by petitioners.
- 18.10.2019: Writ petition dismissed for default due to non-compliance.
- 15.03.2020: Nationwide lockdown under Covid-19 declared by Government of India.
- 23.03.2020: Supreme Court, in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, extended limitation periods from 15.03.2020 till further orders.
- 14.03.2021: Supreme Court’s order came into effect excluding limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021.
- 15.03.2021: 90-day limitation window opened for expired periods.
- 15.03.2022: Petitioners filed restoration application - 17 months after the 90-day window closed.
- 21.01.2026: Notice issued by the High Court to respondents.
- 25.03.2026: Hearing concluded and order passed.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the restoration application was due to the unprecedented and unavoidable circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. They relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.03.2020, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 from limitation computation, and further provided a 90-day window from 15.03.2021 to file pending applications. They contended that the lockdown rendered physical access to courts impossible, legal consultations difficult, and filing procedures disrupted.
For the Respondents
The respondents opposed the restoration application on the ground of inordinate delay, arguing that the petitioners had over two years to file the application after dismissal, and that the 90-day window under the Supreme Court’s order had long expired by the time the application was filed on 15.03.2022. No rebuttal application was filed, but oral submissions emphasized the principle of finality in litigation and prejudice caused by delay.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought restoration of W.P.(C) No. 5071 of 2018, dismissal of the respondents’ objections on limitation grounds, and an opportunity to cure the defect in the writ petition within a reasonable time.
The Legal Issue
Can a delay in filing a restoration application for a dismissed writ petition be condoned on the ground of Covid-19 lockdown, even if the application is filed after the 90-day window prescribed by the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.03.2020?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s order in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, which explicitly excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 from limitation computation and granted a 90-day extension from 15.03.2021 for all pending filings. They argued that the lockdown was a force majeure event beyond their control, and that the spirit of the Supreme Court’s order was to ensure access to justice during a national emergency. They further submitted that the delay was not mala fide and that the petitioners were elderly and residing in a remote rural area, where access to legal aid and court infrastructure was severely restricted.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the 90-day window under the Supreme Court’s order was a clear, finite extension and that the petitioners’ failure to file within it rendered the delay inexcusable. They argued that the order was not meant to provide indefinite relief and that allowing restoration after such a long delay would undermine the finality of judicial orders and encourage procedural laxity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.03.2020 in detail, particularly the directive that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 be excluded from limitation computation, and that a 90-day window be granted thereafter for filing applications whose limitation had expired during the lockdown.
"In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021."
The Court acknowledged that while the petitioners filed the restoration application on 15.03.2022 - 12 months after the 90-day window closed - the underlying cause of delay was the pandemic, which had rendered court access and legal services practically inaccessible in rural areas like Garhwa. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court’s order was not merely a technical extension but a substantive measure to uphold the right to access justice during a national crisis.
The Court further noted that the respondents had not filed any rebuttal application, and that the petitioners’ explanation was consistent with the factual reality of the lockdown period. The Court held that the spirit of the Supreme Court’s order must prevail over rigid adherence to deadlines where the delay is attributable to an extraordinary, nationwide emergency.
The Court concluded that denying restoration in such circumstances would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners, who had a legitimate claim pending adjudication, and that the interests of justice required the writ petition to be restored.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court allowed the restoration application and directed that W.P.(C) No. 5071 of 2018 be restored to its original file, which had been dismissed for default on 18.10.2019. The petitioners were granted three weeks to remove the defect in the writ petition. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Due to Pandemic Can Be Condoned Beyond the 90-Day Window
- Practitioners may now argue that while the Supreme Court’s 90-day window is the primary relief, courts retain discretion to condone further delay if the cause is demonstrably linked to pandemic-related disruptions.
- This is especially relevant in rural jurisdictions where court access, legal aid, and digital infrastructure were severely limited during lockdowns.
- The burden shifts to the respondent to show actual prejudice caused by the delay, not merely the passage of time.
Restoration Applications Are Not Barred by Technicality Alone
- Courts must distinguish between dilatory conduct and genuine hardship caused by extraordinary circumstances.
- The ratio of this judgment reinforces that procedural justice must yield to substantive justice when the delay arises from a national emergency.
- Legal teams should document pandemic-related impediments (e.g., travel restrictions, hospitalization, lack of internet, closure of legal offices) when filing restoration applications.
Procedural Flexibility Is a Judicial Imperative in Crises
- This judgment signals that courts will not mechanically apply limitation rules when the underlying cause is a force majeure event recognized by the Supreme Court.
- It sets a precedent for similar applications in civil, criminal, and service matters where limitation periods expired during the lockdown.
- Practitioners should cite this judgment when seeking restoration of dismissed applications, appeals, or writs affected by pandemic delays.
