Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Kripal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar – Respondent
MAC No. 22 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P. K. Patel, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Adv.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be demonstrated to condone delay in appeals, strictly enforcing limitation laws.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Application for condonation of delay - Delay of 2389 days in filing an appeal - Claimant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay - The plea of ignorance and Covid-19 not sufficient, highlighting the need for compliance with limitation laws - Condonation rejected. (Paras 5-14)
(B) Appeal - The appeal dismissed due to inordinate delay without satisfactory justification. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, injured in an accident involving a bus, sought to appeal a 2014 award of Rs. 2,00,000/- granted by the tribunal. The appeal was filed significantly late, citing ignorance of limitation and Covid-19 as reasons for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the principle that delay must be adequately explained and rejected the application for condonation due to the failure to meet this requirement. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Issues: Whether the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal warranted condonation under the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the law of limitation must be adhered to strictly, with insufficient cause for delay leading to the dismissal of the appeal, reiterating the importance of timely legal proceedings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant incurred injuries due to an accident. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments about delay and ignorance presented. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court reasoned on delay rules and necessary justifications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal principles from supreme court regarding delay and limitation. (Para 13) |
| 5. final decision on delay and appeal outcome provided. (Para 14) |
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board
10-07-2025
1) Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2) The claimant has filed this petition assailing the award dated
22.03.2014 passed in Claim Case No. 49/2012 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) whereby compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- 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 29.03.2012, the claimant was traveling in offending vehicle I.e bus bearing registration no. C.G. 15 A-8079 which got turtled due to rash & negligent driving of respondent No. 1 in front of Petrol pump, P.S. Bango, District Korba and as a result of the same, the claimant received grievous injuries.
4) The learned Tribunal after appreciating documentary and oral evidence awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-
with interest @ 6% p.a. to the claimant.
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 2389 days in filing the instant appeal. He would contend that the appellant is a poor villager and he was not aware of the proceedings and law of limitation and when he approached the local counsel, he was advised to file Misc. Appeal. Thereafter, he managed money to file the appeal. He further submits that the appellant 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
2389 days 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 22.03.2014 and this appeal was preferred on 06.01.2021. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant, who was injured in the accident has stated that he was not aware of the proceedings and the law of limitation. It is further stated that he approached the local counsel belatedly 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 22.03.2014, whereas the appeal was preferred on 06.01.2021. A perusal of the application moved by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would show that the appellant failed to explain the delay of 2389 days 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 al
