Patna High Court
Motiur Rahman AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed, and consequently the civil review is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Motiur Rahman Ansari, filed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of a delay of more than six years in filing Civil Review No. 235 of 2024. The Court examined the grounds for the delay and found no satisfactory explanation or sufficient cause. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, the Court held that negligence or lack of bona‑fide reasons cannot justify condonation of such inordinate delay. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed. As a result, the Civil Review itself was also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be granted condonation of a delay of 6 years 3 months and 28 days in filing the civil review.
- Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause to justify the delay under established jurisprudence.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation period
- civil review
- procedural law
- Supreme Court precedent
- judicial discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.235 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11749 of 2013
======================================================
Motiur Rahman Ansari, aged about 62 years (Male), Son of Late Mohammad
Siddique Ansari, Resident of Village- Akhtiyarpur, Post Office and Police
Station- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, the Science and Technology Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, the Science and Technology Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Bailey Road,
Patna.
5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road,
Patna.
8. Sri Ravindra Lal, Son of Lakhan Lal, Resident of Village- Nijamuddinpur,
Post Office and Police Station and District- Jehanabad.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiyaram Sahi, Advocate and Mr. Md. Amir
Alam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, A.A.G.-5, Mr. Md. Kamil
Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-5 and Mr. Alok Ranjan,
A.C. to A.A.G.-5.
For the Pvt. O.P. : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2026:
Patna High Court C. REV. No.235 of 2024(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
2. The present Interlocutory Application has been
filed seeking condonation of delay of 06 years 03 months and
28 days in preferring the present Civil Review No. 235 of 2024.
3. Upon consideration of the grounds stated in the
application, we find that no cogent, convincing, or justifiable
explanation has been furnished for such prolonged delay. At this
juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of
Basawaraj V. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013)14
SCC 81, wherein it was observed 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
Patna High Court C. REV. No.235 of 2024(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
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.”
4. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application No. 01 of
2026 stands dismissed.
Re.: Civil Review No. 235 of 2024:
5. Consequently, the Civil Review is also dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U.K./-
U
Checking your session…