1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9930   OF 2011 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.)NO.3486 OF 2005)  

STATE OF BIHAR                                    APPELLANT

                VERSUS

PUKHAN MAHTO                                      RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.  The  

respondent, though served with notice, has not chosen to enter  

his appearance.  

3. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature  

at Patna in F.A.No.484 of 1995.   

4. The  State  of  Bihar,  being  aggrieved  by  the  order  

passed by the Reference Court, had approached the High Court by  

filing the First Appeal No.484 of 1995. In filing the appeal,  

there was a delay of just 21 days. For condonation of delay in  

filing  the  appeal,  an  application  under  Section  5  of  the  

Limitation Act had also been filed.  For reasons difficult to  

sustain, the High Court has refused to condone the delay and  

consequently, it has rejected the First Appeal.

5. In our opinion, in  a matter like this, the High

2

Court ought to have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on  

its own merits. Since that had not been done, we cannot sustain  

the order passed by the High Court. Consequently, we allow the  

appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.  We  

also condone the delay in filing the First Appeal before the  

High  Court.  We  request  the  High  Court  to  decide  the  First  

Appeal expeditiously on its own merits.

Ordered accordingly.     

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 18, 2011