JUDGMENT :

MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J.

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal is listed in Defects category.

2. As per office report, the appeal is time barred by 690 days and the appellant has preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to lack of information about the outcome of the decision of the claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal. Further, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant received injuries in the accident and sustained 20-25% of permanent disablement. He is poor and illustrate person and does not have much knowledge about the legal proceedings. Therefore, the delay in filing the present appeal occurred.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a gross delay of 690 days and there is no sufficient reason which explains the said delay and thus, the same may not be condoned.

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

6. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award on 24.11.2017 in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award on 4.1.2020 and it was delivered to appellant on 11.1.2020. The present appeal was thereafter filed on 13.1.2020. However, no cogent reasons have been put forth by the appellant as to why he could not get certified copy of the judgment and award for such a long period and file the instant appeal within the period of limitation.

7. In Basawraj vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona-fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260 has discussed as under:

“17. In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal (supra), it is observed and held as under:

In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be lightheartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone del