Delay in filing appeals must be justified with adequate reasons; mere assertion of procedural mishaps is insufficient for condonation.

THE HONOURABLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMP No.4544 of 2026 and WA SR N o.661 of 2026 SBI Life Insurance Company Limited Central Processing Centre, 7^th Level (D Wing) & 8^th Level Sea Woods Grant Central Tower II, Plot No.R1, Sector 40, See Woods, Nerul Node, Thane District, Navi Mumbai-400 706 Petitioner/Appellant Vs

1.The Insurance Ombudsman State of Tamilnadu & Puducherry Jatima Akthi Court, 4th Floor, No.453, (Old 312), Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018

2.Dr.J.Malar Selvi No.8A/23, Telephone Colony Y.M.R.Patti Dindigul-624 001 Respondent/Respondent PRAYER in CMP No.4544 of 2026 : Petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 589 days in filing the appeal.

PRAYER in W.A.No.SR 661 of 2026: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18062 of 2021.

For Appellant: Ms.M.Sandhiya for M/s.Rank Associates JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard on the application seeking condonation of delay of 589 days in filing the writ appeal, which assails the order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18062 of

2021.

2. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is stated that the certified copy of the order passed in the writ petition, which was initially obtained by the appellant, was inadvertently misplaced during internal file movement and time was consumed in tracing the file. Subsequently, the appellant applied for a fresh certified copy, which led to unavoidable loss of time. It is further stated that the delay is thus unintentional and occasioned by a combination of procedural, administrative and circumstantial factors beyond the appellant's control.

3. The issue relating to condonation of delay is no longer res integra, and the Supreme Court has settled the legal position through a catena of decisions, of which relevant paragraphs of a few decisions are reproduced hereunder:

(i) In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. V. K. Thangappan and another, 1(2006) 4 SCC 322, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

“6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other

circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, (1969) 1 SCC 185. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.”

(ii) Long delay cannot be allowed to be condoned as a matter of course in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 22025 INSC 1104, wherein it is held as under:

“258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be

presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for