IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of knowledge of a judgment and order until receiving a certified copy can constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay in filing an appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. By Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2019, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur at Lamphelpat, disposed of Motor Accident Claims Case No. 46 of 2017 filed by respondent No.1 herein. Thereby, the Tribunal directed respondent No. 2 in the Claims Case to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 11,25,182/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-Two only) along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. A copy of the said Judgment and Order was directed to be furnished to respondent No. 2 for information and compliance. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 2 filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1988'). As there was a delay of 54 days on his part in doing so, he filed MC(Mac App). No. 3 of 2019 seeking condonation thereof. However, when the said miscellaneous case was taken up for hearing on 26.11.2019, Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant, made an endorsement to the effect that no application for condonation of delay was necessary and that the miscellaneous case may be closed as withdrawn. Recording the same, MC(Mac App). No. 3 of 2019 was closed as withdrawn. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 28.11.2019, the issue arose as to how and when the appellant received a copy of the judgment and order under appeal. The matter was accordingly directed to be listed under the caption 'Maintainability'. However, the Registry misunderstood this direction and numbered the case itself as 'Maintainability No. 1 of 2019'.

2. The delay of 54 days in the filing of the appeal is yet to be condoned. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagmal and others v. Kunwar Lal and others [(2010) 12 SCC 159 : 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 514], wherein it was held that a formal application for condonation of delay is not an essential requisite. Similar was the edict of the Supreme Court in Sesh Nath Singh and another v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another [(2021) 7 SCC 313 : 2021 Legal Eagle (SC) 213]. It was observed therein that a plain reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, makes it amply clear that it is not mandatory to file an application in writing before relief can be granted thereunder and all that is required is a plea to condone the delay. Therefore, withdrawal of MC (Mac App). No. 3 of 2019 is of no consequence and would not bar this Court from considering the plea of the appellant to condone the delay of 54 days in the filing of the appeal at this stage.

3. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant; and Mr. W. Niranjit, learned counsel for respondent No.1, viz., the claimant.

4. It is pertinent to note that the appellant herein, being respondent No. 2 in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 46 of 2017, put in his appearance before the Tribunal but was set ex parte, vide order dated 03.11.2018 passed by the Tribunal, owing to his absence. He asserts that the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Tribunal was delivered to him on 14.10.2019 by the claimant and it was only then that he came to know of its existence. This claimed lack of knowledge on his part is what he offers as 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay in the filing of this appeal.

5. Both sides pressed into service an abundance of case law on principles relating to condonation of delay. However, each individual case would have to turn upon its own peculiar facts, basing on the broad legal principles adumbrated over time. It would not be necessary, therefore, to burden this order with all the cited case law. Relevant legal principles culled out from the judgments cited by both sides will suffice.

Two considerations are important in the context of condonation of delay - upon expiration of the period of limitation, a decree holder obtains a benefit under the law of limitation to plead that the decree is