High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Bangladesh Railway v Shafiqul Islam
Civil Revision 4686/2004 · Rule made absolute; delay condoned · Decided 8 September 2026
The plaintiff sued Bangladesh Railway and others for a declaration that an earlier decree passed in another suit was collusive and not binding on him. The Senior Assistant Judge, Lalmonirhat, decreed the suit on 24.11.2003. Bangladesh Railway appealed to the District Judge, Lalmonirhat, 168 days late, and applied under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation. The District Judge rejected the application on 01.08.2004, finding the delay not properly explained. Bangladesh Railway obtained a Rule in revision. No one appeared at the hearing. Relying on Appellate Division and Indian Supreme Court authority on condonation, the High Court Division found that the Railway, as a statutory body, had clearly explained the delay through its internal process of obtaining legal advice, arranging and approving expenses, and instructing its advocate. That explanation showed sufficient cause, and the District Judge had rejected it in a slipshod manner. The Rule was made absolute, the delay was condoned and the appellate court was directed to proceed with the appeal expeditiously.
- Whether the District Judge was right to reject Bangladesh Railway's application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 168 days in filing an appeal.
- In condonation of delay the Government enjoys no special privilege and the standard of acceptance is the same for citizens and the State, but some consideration may be extended to it in appropriate circumstances (Bangladesh v Jaheruddin, 1986 BLD (AD) 180).
- The requirement that every day's delay be explained must be applied in a rational, common-sense and pragmatic manner, and substantial justice should be preferred to technical considerations.
- Bangladesh Railway's explanation of its process of obtaining legal advice, arranging and approving expenses and instructing counsel showed sufficient cause for the 168-day delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- The District Judge rejected the application in a slipshod manner and without correct appreciation of the law, and should have condoned the delay so that the substantive decree could be tested on its merits.
- The impugned order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the appellate court was directed to proceed with the appeal expeditiously.
Such explanation, in my view, was satisfactory as it explained ‘sufficient cause’ and as such the learned District Judge should have allowed the application condoning the delay.
