Patna High Court
Naresh Prasad vs Deepak Kumar Choudhary on 16 March, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.800 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5668 of 2013
======================================================
Naresh Prasad, Son of Late Murat Prasad, Resident of Village- Hathiyakand
Sarai, Police Station- Maner, District - Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Deepak Kumar Choudhary, Son of Subash Choudhary, Resident of Village-
Hathiyakand Sarai, Police Station- Maner, District - Patna.
2. Raj Kumar Choudhary, Son of Subash Choudhary, Resident of Village-
Hathiyakand Sarai, Police Station- Maner, District - Patna.
3. Subash Choudhary, Son of Late Bhowchand Choudhary, Resident of
Village- Hathiyakand Sarai, Police Station- Maner, District - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 16-03-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed
challenging the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned
Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5668 of 2013. The said writ
petition was filed, inter alia, assailing the order dated
29.01.2013
passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III in Title Suit No.
127 of 2009 by which the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 filed
on behalf of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The office has pointed out objection regarding
the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly
Patna High Court L.P.A No.800 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
2/6
it has been placed under the heading “For Orders on Office
Notes”.
3. A coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.
138 of 2011 while dealing with the identical objection raised by
the Stamp reporter has categorically held that no intra Court
appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent shall lie from a
judgment or order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction or
one made in exercise of power of superintendence. It would be
pertinent to quote the relevant paragraph for the needful.
“The learned Writ Court has
dismissed the writ petition after considering
the matter on merits. The first issue is
whether an appeal under Clause-10 of the
Letters Patent of this Court would lie against
the judgment of an order of the Writ Court
which could be passed only in exercise of
power under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. A mere look at Clause- 10 of the
Letters Patent makes it clear that no appeal
shall lie from a judgment or order made in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction or one
made in exercise of power of
superintendence which was earlier under the
provisions of Section 107 of the Government
of India Act and is now available only under
Article 227 of the Constitution.”
4. It would also be relevant to observe here that
there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court, challenging
Patna High Court L.P.A No.800 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
3/6
the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No.
5668 of 2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India & Ors. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)
through his legal heir, reported in, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489,
has observed that delay should not be excused as a matter of
generosity and rendering substantial justice should not be
rendered at the cost of opposite party. The relevant paragraphs
are quoted hereinbelow:
“24. In the aforesaid
circumstances, we made it very clear that we
are not going to look into the merits of the
matter as long as we are not convinced that
sufficient cause has been made out for
condonation of such a long and inordinate
delay.
xxx xxx xxx
26. The length of the delay is a
relevant matter which the court must take into
consideration while considering whether the
delay should be condoned or not. From the
tenor of the approach of the appellants, it
appears that they want to fix their own period
of limitation for instituting the proceedings for
which law has prescribed a period of
limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost
his right to have the matter considered on
merits because of his own inaction for a long,
it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.800 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
4/6delay and in such circumstances of the case,
he cannot be heard to plead that the
substantial justice deserves to be preferred as
against the technical considerations. While
considering the plea for condonation of delay,
the court must not start with the merits of the
main matter. The court owes a duty to first
ascertain the bona fides of the explanation
offered by the party seeking condonation. It is
only if the sufficient cause assigned by the
litigant and the opposition of the other side is
equally balanced that the court may bring
into aid the merits of the matter for the
purpose of condoning the delay.
27. We are of the view that the
question of limitation is not merely a technical
consideration. The rules of limitation are
based on the principles of sound public policy
and principles of equity. We should not keep
the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the
head of the respondent for indefinite period of
time to be determined at the whims and
fancies of the appellants.”
5. It is trite that where a case/appeal has been
presented in the Court beyond limitation, the applicant/
appellant has to explain to the Court as to what was the
sufficient cause, which prevented him from approaching the
Court within the period prescribed.
6. In Majji Sannemma Vs. Reddy Sridevi, reported
Patna High Court L.P.A No.800 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
5/6
in, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
underscored that even though limitation may harshly affect the
rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when
prescribed by statute.
7. In the case of Ajay Dabra Vs. Pyare Ram,
reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 92, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as follows:
“13. This Court in the case of
Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting
an application for condonation of delay for
lack of sufficient cause has concluded in
Paragraph 15 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.800 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
6/6
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.”
8. Having considered the aforenoted settled
position, as also considering the inordinate delay in approaching
this Court, we are not inclined to entertain the present Letters
Patent Appeal.
9. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal
stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.03.2026 Transmission Date NA