The court emphasized that the delay in filing an appeal must be satisfactorily explained and that the party seeking condonation of delay must approach the court with clean hands.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. The delay in filing the appeal as per the Registry of this Court is of four years two months and thirteen days. The award was passed by learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal on 15.09.2018 and the appeal assailing the same has been filed by the applicants alongwith the application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on 29.11.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that delay in filing the application is bona-fide and the reason is that as the applicants were not aware about the adjudication of the Claim Petition by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the delay occurred in filing the application. No other point has been urged.

4. The respondents contest the said stand of the applicants. Learned counsel for the non­applicant/Insurance Company has submitted that the very foundation laid down by the applicants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is based on falsehood which is evident from the fact that on one hand, the applicants are trying to justify the delay in filing the appeal on the plea that they were not aware about the adjudication of the Claim Petition by the learned Tribunal, but on the other hand before the filing of the appeal they had already approached the learned Tribunal where the amount was deposited, for release of the amount. Accordingly, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that as the applicants have not approached the Court with clean hands, the application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the averments made in the application as well as the reply filed thereto by respondent No. 5, this Court is of the considered view that the delay of more than four years and two months in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained by the claimants.

6. As it could be disputed before the Court that before the filing of the appeal alongwith this application, the applicants had approached the learned Tribunal for release of the award amount, in this background the contention of the applicants before this Court that delay occurred on account of their not being aware about the passing of the award, but natural is totally incorrect.

7. It is settled law that with the passage of time and with the expiry of limitation, valuable right accrues on the other side and this right cannot be taken away by the Court until and unless the party seeking condonation of delay, satisfies the Court that the delay was bona-fide.

8. Herein, it cannot be said that this condition has been satisfied by the applicants as the averments made in the application and the contentions that have been urged before the Court so as to explain the delay are based on falsehood.

9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case wherein the huge delay of more than four years and two months in filing the appeal can be condoned.

10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed, so also is the fate of the appeal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.