Procedural Lapses Not “Sufficient Cause": Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Condone 597-Day Delay By State In Filing Appeal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Punjab Government seeking condonation of a 597-day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment passed by the Trial Court, holding that the delay was inordinate, unexplained, and devoid of bona fides.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The applicant-State has failed to provide any concrete explanation or documentary proof to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause, much less sufficient cause as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone such a significant delay. The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable."

The Court added that merely attributing it to procedural or unforeseen circumstances, without supporting details or evidence, falls short of the legal threshold for condonation. The applicant-State has neither exhibited continuous diligence in the matter nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could reasonably explain such an extensive delay.

The State sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for filing an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence. The explanation offered was that the file had moved through multiple administrative and statutory channels and that the delay primarily occurred due to negligence of a police official who failed to forward the file to the concerned Investigating Officer

The State contended that the certified copy of the judgment was obtained promptly on May 10, 2023. Sanction for filing the appeal was granted on July 10, 2023. Thereafter, affidavits were sought from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur.

The file allegedly remained pending from July 18, 2023 till January 25, 2025 due to failure of an ASI to forward it to the Investigating Officer, for which departmental proceedings were later initiated, it added.

The State argued that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that refusal to condone it would cause grave prejudice to the prosecution.

Rejecting the explanation, the Court held that the State had failed to show “sufficient cause” for condonation of such an extensive delay.

"The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay," said the judge.

In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay of 597 days in filing the accompanying appeal merits dismissal.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's cases in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (2024) and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025), to underscore that merits of the case are irrelevant at the stage of delay condonation and the Government litigants are not entitled to condonation as a matter of right.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Title: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh

Click here to read order