State cannot plead COVID to justify appeal filed 2 years late; HC holds delay of over 1,155 days 'inexcusable'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot take refuge behind the COVID-19 period to justify an appeal filed more than two years after the limitation period had expired. Justice Vikas Bahl termed the explanation furnished by the State as vague, incorrect and devoid of sufficient cause, while dismissing its two revision petitions

The ruling by Justice Bahl came in case of an academician, who had filed a suit for declaration that he was deemed to have been promoted as “SS Master” in master cadre from 2006.

The court observed that an ex-parte decree was passed on January 21, 2017.

Even when reckoned from the later date of September 13, 2019—when a coordinate Bench upheld ex-parte proceedings—the limitation expired on October 13, 2019. Yet, the State of Punjab filed its appeal only on October 14, 2021, without any credible explanation.

Justice Bahl observed that the counsel appeared during the proceedings in the revision plea on September 13, 2019, no endeavour was made thereafter to either obtain certified copies or file an appeal within time. In fact, the application seeking condonation of delay did not even disclose the date on which certified copies were applied for.

Rejecting reliance on the period of pandemic-related disruption, Justice Bahl held that COVID-19 could not possibly suspend limitation which had already expired much prior to March 15, 2020.

“Argument raised before this court to the effect that there was COVID from March 15, 2020, to February 14, 2021, is also completely unsubstantiated… Importantly, even after February 14, 2021, the appeal was filed by the petitioner-State on October 14, 2021, after a delay of eight months… Thus, at every stage the petitioner-State have been lax in pursuing the case. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay are vague and do not constitute a sufficient cause”.

Justice Bahl asserted that the first appellate court rightly observed that delay in the present case was of more than 1155 days. But it was wrongly stated as only 11 days of delay in the application for condonation of delay.

“In the present case, the petitioners did not even file the appeal within a period of one month from September 13, 2019, after the revision petition filed by the respondent-academician was allowed, and the ex-parte judgment was upheld. The appeal has been filed on October 14, 2021. No due explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal,” Justice Bahl added, while dismissing the State’s pleas.