Dismissed

Uma Kant Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Saini and Others

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2024CMA/1655/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a motor accident compensation award was filed after a delay of 1793 days. The appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay despite citing liberal condonation principles. The Section 5 application was dismissed, resulting in dismissal of the appeal itself.

What the court decided

AI extract

Uma Kant Gupta Vs Rajendra Kumar Saini and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46408]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1655/2015

¶4

Umakant Gupta S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, R/o Kotkasim, District Alwar.

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajendra Kumar Saini S/o Shri Lala Ram, R/o Khandola Mohalla, Khawas Ka Bas, Rajgarh, District Alwar. Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-T-0357

¶8

Munshi Ram S/o Shri Leela Ram, R/o 148, Moji Ki Bawadi, Old Rajgarh, District Alwar. Owner Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-T0357

¶9

National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Branch Office, 32, Lajpat Nagar, Alwar. Insurer Of Vehicle No. Rj-29-T-0357

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Hukum	Chand Saini
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

08/11/2024

¶15

The instant Civil Misc. Appeal, is preferred aggrieved from Award dated 19.02.2010 in MAC Case No.123/2008 passed by MACT, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar.

¶16

The office has pointed out a delay of 1793 days in filing the present Civil Misc. Appeal and to substantiate the reasons of delay, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed.

[2024:RJ-JP:46408]

[CMA-1655/2015]

(2 of 5)

By this order, we are only considering and disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and the consequential effect on the instant Civil Misc. Appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that aggrieved from impugned order, the instant Civil Misc. Appeal is filed after delay of 1793 days, which was beyond control of the effected party. He also submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be given a liberal construction, so that a party may not suffer due to technicalities. He also submits that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed for condonation of delay and the reasons are supported with an affidavit and no contrary material is available to disbelieve the grounds raised by the applicant.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Section 5 of the Limitation Act prescribes that any appeal or revision or an application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the petitioner satisfies the Court on sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or revision or making an application within prescribed period.

¶24

In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to allow application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:-

(3 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:46408]

[CMA-1655/2015]

Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

¶29

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

¶30

"Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

¶31

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

¶32

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

¶33

It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

¶34

8. In case of Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and

¶35

Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 685 , Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 5 of Limitation Act has referred the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215 and observed that the explained delay

[2024:RJ-JP:46408]

[CMA-1655/2015]

(4 of 5)

should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi-benches of Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay.

¶40

In the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.: (2014) 13 SCC 291 , while referring the judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.: (2013) 12 SCC 649 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court further observed that the Court cannot condone the delay, if it is not properly, satisfactorily and

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:46408]

[CMA-1655/2015]

convincingly explained, and a delay cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds.

¶45

Herein, even if we interpret the provision of condonation of delay in most liberal manner, even then it is duty of the appellant-applicant to atleast show “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. In the entire application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, sufficient ground was not mentioned, which were beyond the control of applicant. Herein, the appellant-applicant has failed to show any reason or ground for which he could not be blamed. Thus, no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay.

¶46

Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we are not inclined to allow this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, thus the instant Civil Misc. Appeal, is barred by limitation and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is liable to be dismissed.

¶47