The petitioner must provide a satisfactory explanation for delays in legal proceedings; mere belief that a case is pending is not a valid justification for extended inaction.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order dated

09.07.2003 of the Tribunal, in this petition under Article 227. By Ext.P1 the Tribunal, dismissed the claim filed by the petitioner since, the petitioner and the counsel were absent and also for the reason that no batta had been paid for issuing notice to R1. It is to be noticed that this petition under Article 227 is filed after about 11 years from the date of dismissal of the claim petition. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with an application under Order 9 Rule 4 for setting aside the dismissal for default.

2. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner has suffered injury in an accident and the fact that the accident occurred and the petitioner suffered injury being undisputed, the petitioner's claim for compensation should be considered.

3. This Court called for the records of the case.

It is seen that on 25.04.2002 it was posted for appearance of R1 and R2 who were merely called absent and the case was posted for written statement. In July 2002 fresh notice was ordered to R1. Then, when the matter was called on 23.12.2002 neither the petitioner nor the counsel were present. Hence, fresh notice was directed against R1 and it was also directed to issue notice to the petitioner. The matter was then posted to 25.02.2003, when it was reposted to 08.05.2003. On 08.05.2003 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case stood adjourned to 02.07.2003. On 02.07.2003 there was a further order to pay batta within three days and the case was posted to 09.07.2003. Even on the said date neither was the batta paid nor was there appearance of the petitioner or counsel and hence the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 order.

4. In fact, on going through the records, it is seen that when notice was ordered on 23.12.2002, it was ordered to the petitioner also. Notice is seen issued to the petitioner pointing out that the original petition when taken up for hearing on 23.12.2002, neither the petitioner nor the counsel was present and also intimating the next date of posting as on

25.02.2003.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on Manoharan v. Sivarajan and others [(2013) 4 KHC 693 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had declared that in considering the question of limitation, and permitting a person seeking for adjudication of his grievance; even when there is considerable delay, the approach of the Court should be liberal. The learned counsel would specifically point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “If the explanation given does not smack mala fides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor”(sic).

6. In the present case, as was noticed earlier, no application to set aside the dismissal of the claim was filed before the Tribunal. A petition under Article 227 has been filed after 11 years. The averments in the petition shows that there is no satisfactory explanation for the long delay. The petitioner rests contend, with the averment that he was under the bona fide belief that the matter was pending consideration by the Tribunal; for a long eleven years. The other averments are with respect to there being no default in taking steps, since it was an inadvertent omission on the part of the counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner's explanation; that is to say, whatever has been proffered, cannot be said to be satisfactory. The Court has to consider the explanation offered in the context of the considerable delay of more than 11 years.

7. The respondents before the Tribunal are also entitled to expect certain amount of finality in matters, especially, when the matter stood dismissed for default more than 11 years back. Adducing evidence in the matter, wherein the accident had occurred more than 11 years before, and defending the claim application would be downright impossible at this distance of time. In the present case, what assumes signif