Inordinate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause explaining each day's delay, substantiated by evidence; vague, unsubstantiated plea of family illness fails against rigorous limitation law application.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

This order shall dispose of an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of seven years, three months and thirteen days in filing the present appeal. As per the applicant, delay in filing the appeal has occurred, as he was not aware about any proceedings against him in any Court due to the reason that his wife was suffering from cancer and for her better treatment, the applicant used to remain out of station. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal in neither intentional nor willful, but was beyond the control of the applicant, as such, the same deserves to be condoned.

2. Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5/Insurance Company, wherein, it has been submitted that the applicant was proceeded against ex parte before the learned Tribunal below, as despite valid and effective service, he did not file and reply. It has been further submitted that the applicant has not appended any documents in order to show that his wife was suffering from cancer and has not appended any document showing the period during which she remained under treatment. Further, the applicant was aware of the accident and also that both deceased as well driver of the car succumbed to the injuries suffered by them on account of rash and negligent driving of Gagan Kumar. The death certificate of the wife of applicant shows that she has expired on 15.10.2022, whereas, the present appeal has been filed in the year, 2024. Not only this, the applicant has also filed an application for setting aside the impugned award alongwith delay application on 10.02.2023, which was dismissed being time barred. It has been submitted that the applicant has not sufficiently mentioned in the application as to what prevented him from filing the present appeal for seven years, three months and thirteen days. Therefore, non-applicants/respondents prayed for dismissal of the application.

3. I have heard learned vice counsel for the applicant-appellant, learned counsel for non- applicants/respondents No. 3 & 4, learned counsel for non- applicant/respondent No. 5 and also gone through the material available on record.

4. Learned vice counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but was beyond the control of the applicant, as such, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5/Insurance Company contended that the no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condonation of such a huge delay in filing the appeal, as such, the present application deserves dismissal.

6. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. In Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , 2013 (14) SCC 81, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to en