Patna High Court
Goshala Committee, Madhepura through its Secretary Giridhari PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The restoration petition is dismissed as the fourteen‑year delay is inordinate and no sufficient cause is shown.
Summary
The petitioner, Goshala Committee, filed a restoration petition seeking to revive Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 2011, which had been dismissed. The petition was filed approximately fourteen years after the dismissal, an inordinate delay. The court examined the petitioner's grounds and found no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, the court held that without sufficient cause, such a delay cannot be condoned. Consequently, the restoration petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate authority for any further relief.
Issues considered
- Whether a restoration petition filed fourteen years after dismissal can be entertained despite the delay
- Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause to justify condoning the delay
Subjects
- Restoration of appeal
- Condonation of delay
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Limitation period
- Supreme Court precedent
- Basawaraj case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.273 of 2026
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.28 of 2011
======================================================
Goshala Committee, Madhepura through its Secretary Giridhari Prasad S/o
Late Ram Bilash Agrawal, Resident of Village- Madhepura, P.O. and P.S.-
Madhepura, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Collector, Madhubani.
3. The Anchaladhikari (Circle Officer), Madhepura, Distt.- Madhubani.
4. Upendra Thakur @ Lal Thakur, S/o Late Kari Thakur Resident of Village-
Madhepura, P.S.- Madhepura, Distt.- Madhubani.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Shukla, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 07-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present restoration petition has been preferred
seeking restoration of L.P.A. No. 28 of 2011 which came to be
dismissed.
3. Upon perusal of the records, it transpires that the
restoration petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of
approximately fourteen years from the date of dismissal.
4. Upon consideration of the grounds stated in the
application, we find that no cogent, convincing, or justifiable
Patna High Court MJC No.273 of 2026(5) dt.07-07-2026
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.”
5. Accordingly, the present application stands
dismissed.
Patna High Court MJC No.273 of 2026(5) dt.07-07-2026
3/3
6. If so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J)
Sachin/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.