Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalengzauvi and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC28 Apr 2022CMAppl./3/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application by Oriental Insurance Company seeking condonation of 873 days delay in filing a review petition was dismissed. The Court held the applicant was inactive and lacked diligence, finding no sufficient cause for the negligence.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in filing review petition was dismissed as the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the inactive delay.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030004472021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CMAppl./3/2021

¶5

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Manager Aizawl District Aizawl Mizoram

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Smt. Lalengzauvi and 2 Ors Rengdil, Diakkawn Kolasib District Mizoram

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr L H Lianhrima, Sr. Adv.

¶10

Linked Case : Review.Pet./4/2021

¶11

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Branch Manager Aizawl Division Aizawl Mizoram

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

Smt. Lalengzauvi and 2 Ors Rengdil Diakkawn Kolasib District

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Mr L H Lianhrima Sr. Adv.

ORDER

Date : 28-04-2022

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶21

2. The applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 873 days in filing the review petition against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 12.04.2019, dismissing MAC. App. No. 7/2019.

¶22

3. The applicant’s counsel submits that while the impugned order was passed on 12.04.2019, the Insurance Company forwarded a letter to their counsel on 17.07.2019, i.e., after 97 days had gone by, for obtaining necessary documents. Thereafter, on 30.08.2019, i.e., after 141 days from the date of the impugned order, the applicant sent a letter dated 30.08.2019 to their counsel to provide documents for filing an SLP in the Supreme Court. On 31.10.2019, i.e., after 203 days from the date of the impugned order, the applicant decided to appoint one counsel, namely Mr. Vanlalnghaka for filing a review petition against the impugned order. The Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court was closed due to there being Winter Vacation from 12.12.2019 - 14.01.2020. The learned counsels for the applicant, i.e., Mr. Lalremtluanga and Mr. Vanlalnghaka

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

submitted their resignation letter on 16.03.2021 and 13.04.2021. The Regional Office of the applicant thereafter appointed the present counsel on 05.07.2021 and the appeal was filed on 03.12.2021, i.e., after a delay of 873 days.

¶25

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has also brought to the notice of the Court the other reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the application, which is to the effect that there were various holidays and vacations. Further, the drafting of the review petition took time and the signature of the Branch Manager could not be obtained as he was out of station. Further, due to weddings and funerals, some more time elapsed. He submits that there being no intentional delay in filing the review petition, the application for condoning the delay should be allowed.

¶26

5. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that a review of the impugned order is required, inasmuch as, the Court did not take into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta & Ors., reported in 2011 10 SCC 509.

¶27

6. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand submits that no day to day explanation has been given by the applicant. He further submits that the manner in which the applicant is trying to explain the delay is not sufficient and it is a very weak attempt to justify the inordinate delay of 873 days.

¶28

7. The learned senior counsel further submits that the merits of the review petition cannot be got into while deciding an application for condonation of delay. He however submits that as the learned Apex Court in Josphine James

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, reported in 2013 (4) TAC 22 (SC), having considered the two differing judgments in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors., reported in 2002 7 SCC 456 and Shiela Dutta & Ors. (Supra), had held that the decision rendered in Nicolletta Rohtagi (Supra) should be followed, till a decision is made by a larger Bench, there is no error in the impugned order. He further submits that a review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise.

¶31

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶32

9. On perusing the grounds for the delay, this Court finds that the applicant has not been diligent and has acted in a very lackadaisical manner. The delay of 873 days in filing the review petition, as reflected in the application for condonation of delay, in the opinion of this Court is not a satisfactory explanation and the applicant has been negligent in approaching this Court at such a late stage.

¶33

10. In the case of Basawaraj & Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2013 14 SCC 81, the Apex Court has explained the meaning of the word ‘sufficient cause’ and it has held that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has ‘not acted diligently’ or ‘remained inactive’.

¶34

11. In the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has been inactive and has not pursued the issue of filing the review petition diligently.

¶35

12. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any grounds

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

for condoning the delay.

¶38

The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant