ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

CM APPL. 25479/2019 (Delay)

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 799 days in filing the instant appeal challenging the ex-parte award dated 15th November, 2016 the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-01 (SE)/Saket Courts, New Delhi in suit bearing no. 3024/2016.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant could not file the present appeal within the period of limitation due to the reason that the appellant/owner of the alleged offending vehicle was never served before the learned Tribunal.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEENMAC.APP. 601/2019 Page 1 of 9

3. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly noted in paragraph No.4 of the impugned judgment that the applicant failed to contest the claim petition and proceeded ex-parte.

4. It is further submitted that the notice dated 21st September, 2015, which is appended as Annexure-B to the present appeal, shows that the learned Tribunal had directed to serve the said notice upon the owner through the Investigating Officer, however, the same was never served by the Investigating Officer because it does not bear the signature of the owner as received. Further, the Investigation Officer has not filed any report in respect of the service of notice upon the owner. Moreover, pabandinama was also served upon the owner which has to be served by the Investigating Officer at the time of filing the Detailed Accident Report.

5. It is submitted that the applicant came to know about the impugned judgment and execution proceedings filed by the respondent No.1/insurance company on 12th April, 2019, when he received a notice of the learned Assistant Collector, Raja Garden, New Delhi regarding the recovery of Rs.4,60,183/- which was handed over to the applicant by the new buyer of the applicant‟s previous residence, i.e., C-8, Saraswati Garden, New Delhi, which the applicant had sold in the year 2016.

6. It is submitted that after receiving the notice on 12th April, 2019, the applicant contacted his counsel and the said counsel moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) seeking setting aside the award dated 15th November, 2016, however, the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 20th April, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEENMAC.APP. 601/2019 Page 2 of 9

2019, pursuant to which the applicant instructed his counsel to file the present appeal.

7. It is submitted that the aforestated reasons are bonafide and in the event the delay of 799 days is not condoned, the same would cause serious prejudice to the applicant. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter be heard on merits.

8. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- applicants/respondents vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the grounds taken by the applicant are unreasonable and that the same is misuse of the process of law, and in the absence of any bonafide reasons, the application is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material placed on record.

10. It has already been discussed and reiterated time and again by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that filing of a particular appeal or application within the limitation is the prescribed rule and any deviation from such prescribed rule is against the nature of settled legal propositions. As per the settled law, while condoning the delay, more specifically, enormous delay; the Courts have to consider the genuineness of the reasons furnished by the party seeking condonation of delay. Huge delay is to be condoned only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable, and if it is made out that there is „sufficient cause‟. Thus, th