<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken strong objection to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision allowing the first appeal by the state government in a civil suit by condoning the delay of 1612 days.</p><p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Prasanna B Varale set aside the High Court's order of September 1, 2025, while expressing displeasure over the ignorance of law.</p><p>"We are dismayed to say from the tenor of the impugned order that the High Court condoned the delay of 1612 days on mere asking without highlighting the sufficient cause that might have been assigned by the State,'' the bench said.</p>.'We are completely immune': Supreme Court flags 'half-baked running commentary' on pending cases.<p>After hearing advocate Dushyant Parashar for the appellant Shankargir and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the state government, the bench pointed out, the law in so far as limitation and condoning delay is concerned is well-settled. </p><p>"We wonder if the High Court is aware of the decisions of this court in Union of India Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr., (2024) and Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs Vs Karnataka Housing Board & Ors (2025),'' the bench said.</p><p>In the recent past, the bench pointed out, this court has delivered judgments explaining in what manner the sufficient cause has to be looked into and the plea for condonation of delay is to be considered. </p><p>Bhati submitted, the delay had occurred because of Covid-19 pandemic. </p><p>"However, we do not find a word in this regard in the impugned order of the High Court,'' the bench said.</p><p>The court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. </p><p>The High Court should hear the parties once again and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, it said.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken strong objection to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision allowing the first appeal by the state government in a civil suit by condoning the delay of 1612 days.</p><p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Prasanna B Varale set aside the High Court's order of September 1, 2025, while expressing displeasure over the ignorance of law.</p><p>"We are dismayed to say from the tenor of the impugned order that the High Court condoned the delay of 1612 days on mere asking without highlighting the sufficient cause that might have been assigned by the State,'' the bench said.</p>.'We are completely immune': Supreme Court flags 'half-baked running commentary' on pending cases.<p>After hearing advocate Dushyant Parashar for the appellant Shankargir and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the state government, the bench pointed out, the law in so far as limitation and condoning delay is concerned is well-settled. </p><p>"We wonder if the High Court is aware of the decisions of this court in Union of India Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr., (2024) and Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs Vs Karnataka Housing Board & Ors (2025),'' the bench said.</p><p>In the recent past, the bench pointed out, this court has delivered judgments explaining in what manner the sufficient cause has to be looked into and the plea for condonation of delay is to be considered. </p><p>Bhati submitted, the delay had occurred because of Covid-19 pandemic. </p><p>"However, we do not find a word in this regard in the impugned order of the High Court,'' the bench said.</p><p>The court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. </p><p>The High Court should hear the parties once again and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, it said.</p>