Topic
The Gujarat High Court denied the State’s plea to condone a 1,790-day delay in land-acquisition appeals, holding that gross negligence is not a bona-fide cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The ruling prevents governments from using negligence to revive time-barred appeals, impacting pending acquisition cases.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to condone a 2331-day delay in filing a second appeal after finding the State deliberately concealed its own legal advice and misrepresented the timeline of internal proceedings. This ruling establishes that intentional suppression of material facts by public authorities cannot be masked as bona fide error - setting a strict precedent for government litigation conduct under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
HP High Court rules that the State, as a defendant, deserves a final chance to file a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, even after delay, if the record is in Urdu and translation issues caused the lapse. The court imposes ₹5,000 costs, balancing procedural fairness with the government’s right to defend land disputes.
Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses State's 183-day delay in filing writ appeal, holding that bureaucratic inertia cannot excuse non-compliance with limitation periods under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that government agencies cannot rely on administrative delays or COVID-19 excuses to condone 1803-day delay in filing criminal revision.