The main legal point established is that condonation of delay is an exception to the law of limitation and should be exercised cautiously and uniformly, and that ignorance of law is not an excuse.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: CMP No.606 of 2021 is filed under Section 23(3) of Railway Claims Tribunal, to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal, against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

CMA SR No.12859 of 2020 is preferred against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.)

1. The Miscellaneous Petition on hand is filed under 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

2. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Law of limitation is substantive. Litigations / appeals are expected to be filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes. Rule is to follow limitation. Condonation of delay is an exception. Exceptions are to be exercised discreetly, if the reasons furnished are genuine and acceptable. The Courts are vested with the discretion to condone the delay. This does not mean that enormous delay are to be condoned mechanically. Undoubtedly, if the reasons are candid and convincing, then the Courts are empowered to exercise its power of discretion so as to condone the delay. Power of discretion is a double-edged weapon. Thus, the discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and uniformly. Exercise of power of discretion if made excessively, would defeat the purpose and object of the law of limitation. The Courts are expected not to travel beyond the permissible extent, so as to condone the enormous delay in a routine or mechanical manner. Power of discretion is to be exercised to mitigate the injustice, if any occurred to the litigants.

3. A fine distinction is to be drawn in respect of ‘acceptability’ and ‘unacceptability’ as far as the condonation of delay is concerned. The reasons and its genuinity are important for condoning the delay. It became unnecessary that the Courts have to consider the precedents and condone the delay thereafter or reject the same. There are judgments far and against, but predominantly the facts, circumstances and the genuinity of the reasons of each case plays a pivotal role in considering the relief of condonation of delay.

4. Question may arise the purpose and object of the law of limitation as refusal of condonation of delay sometime causes denial of rights to the litigants. However, there is a definite purpose for prescription of period of limitation for institution of litigations. Different time limits are prescribed for different kinds of litigations. However, there is a strong reason for such prescription of limitation in various statutes. The litigants are always expected to be vigilant over their rights and liabilities, duties and responsibilities. If any citizen of our great nation is allowed to exercise his right at his whims and fancies without reference to the law of limitation, circumstances may arise that the rights of other fellow citizens are prejudiced or affected. Rights cannot be exercised unguidedly. All rights including fundamental rights under the Constitution of India is certainly qualified and subject to various restrictions under other laws. Thus, the rights of citizen and corresponding duty towards the other fellow citizen are to be balanced in such a manner without causing any prejudice, which resulted prescription of law of limitation. Exercise of right by a citizen cannot infringe the right of other fellow citizen. Rights and duties are corresponding and therefore, the law require a limitation for institution of litigations.

5. Any citizen slept over his right, cannot wake up one fine morning and knock the doors of the Court for redressal of his grievances. The person, who slept over, has to loose his right and efflux of time results expiry of the cause. In the event of institution of litigation afte