Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 483
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Dinesh Kumar Patel – Appellant
Versus
JAGBIR SINGH – Respondent
MAC/229/2021
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. K. Patel, Advocate; Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate
The law of limitation is strictly enforced, and applications for condonation of delay must provide satisfactory explanations; mere hardship or ignorance is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal rejected due to failure to satisfactorily explain a delay of 14 years - The court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on public policy and must be strictly adhered to - The claimants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the inordinate delay, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic was deemed insufficient to justify the delay - The court reiterated that the merits of the case cannot be considered when dealing with applications for condonation of delay. (Paras 8, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Appeal - Dismissal - The appeal was dismissed as the application for condonation of delay was rejected, emphasizing that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The claimants, children of the deceased, filed an appeal against an award of Rs. 1,06,800/- passed in 2007, claiming ignorance of the proceedings and the law of limitation as reasons for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claimants did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the 14-year delay in filing the appeal, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay.
Issues: The main issues included whether the delay of 14 years could be condoned and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the law of limitation must be strictly followed, and the claimants failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay, thus the appeal could not be entertained.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment On Board
26-03-2025
1) Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2) The claimants have filed this petition assailing the award dated 21.02.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 61/2007 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) whereby compensation of Rs. 1,06,800/- has been awarded with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.
3) The facts of the present case are that on 05.01.2006, a Road Roller bearing registration No. 5150 which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed Awadhram Patel, who was working as a labour at the railway construction site. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
4) The learned Tribunal after appreciating documentary and oral evidence awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,06,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. to the claimants.
5) With regard to the application for condonation of delay, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that there is a delay of 14 years in filing the instant appeal. He would contend that the appellants were not aware of the pending proceedings of the claim case and the law of limitation and when they approached the local counsel, he advised them to file Misc. Appeal. Thereafter, they managed money to file an appeal. He further submits that the appellants could not file the instant appeal within the stipulated period owing to the Covid-19 outbreak.
6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that there is an inordinate delay of more than 14 years in filing the instant appeal, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
8) Admittedly, the award was passed on 21.02.2007 and this appeal was preferred on 25.03.2021. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellants, who are the children of the deceased, have stated that they were not aware of the proceedings and the law of limitation. It is further stated that they approached the local counsel and thereafter filed the appeal. The plea of Covid-19 outburst has also been taken. Prior to March, 2020, there was no Covid-19 outburst and the award was passed on 21.02.2007, whereas the appeal was preferred on 25.032021. A perusal of the application moved by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would show that the appellants failed to explain the delay of 14 years properly.
9) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector ( LA ) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286 dealt with the object of the law of limitation. In para 10 & 11, the object and import of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act were considered and it was observed thus:-
“10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced herein-below:
3. Bar of limitation. - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
11.Though Section 3 of the Act mentions about suit, appeal and application but since in this case we are concerned with appeal, we would hereinafter be mentioning about the appeal only in context with the limitation, it being barred by time, if at all, and if the delay in its filing is liable to be condoned.”
10) The Hon’ble Court referred to various judgments in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which are reproduced herein-below:-
“19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1935 PC 85 , it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on
