Patna High Court
Fulena Construction Pvt. Ltd.,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the application for condonation of delay must be dismissed as no sufficient cause was demonstrated.
Summary
The petitioner, Fulena Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of an 885‑day delay in filing Civil Review No. 46 of 2025. The court examined the grounds offered and found no cogent or convincing explanation for such a prolonged delay. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the judges emphasized that absent sufficient cause, a court cannot condone inordinate delay. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed. As a result, the underlying Civil Review application was also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause to justify condoning an 885‑day delay in filing the civil review.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer applies to the present condonation request.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation period
- civil review
- interlocutory application
- Supreme Court precedent
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.46 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3840 of 2021
======================================================
Fulena Construction Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Shashi Singh, male, aged
about 70 years, S/O- Late Ram Deo Singh, R/O- Mohalla- Sri Krishna Nagar,
P.O and P.S- Begusarai Sadar, District- Begusarai, Pin-851101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Water Resources Department,
Sinchai Bhawan, old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, old
Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Flood Control and Drainage, Water resources
Department Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Flood control and Drainage, Water Resources
Department, Katihar.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Flood control circle, Bhagalpur.
6. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division Naugachia.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 21-04-2026 Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 2026
The present Interlocutory Application has been filed
by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 885 days in
preferring the present Civil Review No. 46 of 2025.
2. Upon consideration of the grounds stated in the
application, we find that no cogent, convincing, or justifiable
Patna High Court C. REV. No.46 of 2025(5) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
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 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."
3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2026 stands dismissed.
Re : Civil Review No. 46 of 2025
4. Consequently, the present Civil Review application
Patna High Court C. REV. No.46 of 2025(5) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
is also dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/Rajesh
U
Checking your session…