RAM PRATAP SINCE DECEASED AND 7 OTHERSversusSMT BHAGDEI AND 3 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

        FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 297 of 2024

Ram Pratap Since Deceased And 7 Others
                                                                        .....Appellant(s)
                                        Versus
Smt Bhagdei And 3 Others
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                         :   Mahendra Pratap Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)                        :   Shailendra Kumar Pandey

Court No. - 39
                          HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Delay Condonation Application.


1. Heard learned counsel for the defendant/appellants.


2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2015,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Basti with a delay of
3186 days.


3. Learned Tribunal has passed the order dated 18.3.2015 and right to recover has
been given to the Insurance Company. The appellants/opposite parties had appeared
before the learned Tribunal and filed their respective written statement. Thereafter,
learned Tribunal after adducing the evidence by the parties found breach of condition
of the Insurance Policy. The alleged tractor was insured for agricultural purpose, but
that was used for commercial purposes. Even DW-1 who was driver of the said
Tractor has deposed before the learned Tribunal that he was waiting at the place of
accident for any customer. Learned Tribunal has held that the word 'customer' has
been used in commercial sense and it could not be considered in the sense of use of
agricultural purposes. At the time of alleged accident, there was sand in the trolley of
the tractor which was used for commercial purposes for sale and purchase of sand.


4. The appellants/owner was having full and complete knowledge and they have duly
contested before the learned Tribunal, hence it could not be considered that they had
not the proper knowledge of the impugned award dated 18.3.2015. Neither there is
any due diligence nor any reasonable, proper and plausible explanation for the delay
has been given.


5. No person could be permitted to take advantage of his own wilful and deliberate
negligence. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been provided to
condone the delay in the matter where the aggrieved party has failed to appear before
the competent forum within the stipulated period of limitation, in spite of his due
diligence. The due diligence is absolutely missing in the present facts and
circumstances of the case.
                                                                 FAFOD No. 297 of 2024
                                    2

6. From perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that learned Tribunal has held
that the appellants/opposite parties had filed their written statement before the learned
Tribunal and thus, it is apparent that the appellants were appeared before the learned
Tribunal in the claim and they were having knowledge of the same.

7. It has been held by the Supreme Court in D. Gopinathan Pillai versus State of
Kerala, (2007) 2 SCC 322, that in matters relating to arbitration awards, an
application for setting aside the award filed with a delay of 3320 days, without any
sufficient and satisfactory explanation for such delay, is not sustainable. The delay
cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient and reasonable cause.

8. It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Oriental Aroma
Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and
another, (2010) 79 ALL LR 647, that where there is a delay of more than four years
in filing an appeal and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
filed for condonation of delay, the same cannot be allowed in the absence of sufficient
cause. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error in
condoning such inordinate delay by ignoring the judicially accepted parameters
governing the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.


9. It is held by the Supreme Court in Sitaram Ramcharan Etc. vs M.N. Nagarshana
And Ors, AIR 1960 SC 260, that it cannot be disputed that in dealing which the
question of condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party has to
satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making
the application within the prescribed time, and this has always been understood to
mean that the explanation has to cover the whole of the period of delay.

10. The Supreme Court in Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Versus
Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, 2001 (44) ALR 577, made a distinction in
delay and inordinate delay;- "In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be
made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a
few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side
will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach."

11. It is held by this Court in paras 5 and 6 of the decision in Sita Ram Versus Sri
Dhar, 2006 (24) LCD 1239, that:-

"5....the application given for condonation of delay, 15 days after expiry of the period
of limitation, it was not mentioned as to what specific work kept the appellant engaged
for which reason he could not apply for restoration of appeal. A mere cursory
statement that the appellant remained busy in this school work cannot be considered
sufficient reason for condonation of delay it cannot, therefore, be said that the
Presiding Officer was wrong in dismissing the appellant's application.
                                                                                                    FAFOD No. 297 of 2024
                                                                        3

                                    6. Previously Courts did show lenience and latitude in dealing with applications for
                                    adjournments and condonation of delay. It is high time a changed perspective and
                                    attitude is adopted, since the Courts are already overburdened with cases resulting in
                                    inordinate delay in disposal of cases. Those days of condonation of dalliance and
                                    delay should now be over and in cases where no sufficient and proper reason is
                                    assigned for delay. the Court must adopt the stern attitude and refuse relief. That will
                                    also help in transmitting a message that the Court will no more be indulgent and
                                    parties beware."


                                    12. The appeal has been preferred before this Court after a delay of 3186 days, without
                                    showing any due diligence or any reasonable and sufficient cause. This is an
                                    inordinate delay.

                                    13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no sufficient ground
                                    exists for condonation of delay.

                                    14. There is neither any sufficient nor reasonable cause explaining the huge and
                                    inordinate delay of 3186 days. The explanation furnished is neither reasonable nor
                                    plausible.

                                    15. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is liable to be rejected and is
                                    hereby rejected.

                                    (Order on Appeal)

                                    16. Since, the delay condonation application is rejected, consequently, the appeal is
                                    also hereby dismissed.

                                    May 12, 2026
                                    sfa/
                                                                                                        (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad