A delay in filing a legal proceeding cannot be condoned based solely on unsubstantiated allegations of lawyer negligence; the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause and bona fide conduct before the court considers the merits of the underlying case.

PRAYER in C.M.P(MD)No.633 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 421 days in filing the review application to review the order passed in C.M.A(MD)No.331 of 2023, dated 13.10.2023.

PRAYER in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.SR 2198 of 2025 : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order passed by this Court in C.M.A(MD)No.331 of 2023, dated 13.10.2023.

ORDER

The above petition has been filed, invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 421 days in filing the review application to review the order passed in C.M.A(MD)No.331 of 2023, dated 13.10.2023, on the file of this Court.

2. The facts not in dispute are as follows :

(a) The respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2009, claiming compensation for the death of one Ganesan, consequent to an accident occurred on 11.03.2009. The present petitioner, who is the first respondent in the claim petition, filed a counter statement and contested the case. The tribunal passed an award, dated 17.02.2011, granting compensation to the claimants payable by the insurer.

(b) Challenging the said award, the insurer preferred an appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.80 of 2013. Since the insurer has taken a stand that there was no policy of insurance in force for the vehicle in question, this Court vide judgment, dated 16.12.2014, remitted the claim petition back to the trial Court and gave liberty to all the parties to adduce evidence to prove the issue whether there was insurance policy in force for the vehicle in question.

(c) The Tribunal, after recording further evidence, passed an order, dated 28.08.2015, holding that the first respondent's vehicle was not possessing valid insurance coverage for the relevant period, held that the insurer is not liable for the claim and directed the first respondent-owner to pay compensation.

(d) Challenging the said award, the first respondent-owner filed an appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.331 of 2023 and the learned Judge of this Court, passed the impugned judgment, dated 11.10.2023, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the award passed by the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment, the present review application came to be filed along with the above application to condone the delay of 421 days in filing the review application.

3. The petitioner, in the affidavit, filed in support of the delay condonation petition has mainly narrated about the aspects touching the merits of the main case and in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the counsel representing him before this Court failed to inform about the dismissal of the appeal; that the claimants filed an execution petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order attaching the movable properties of the petitioner; that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal only when the Court Amin came to his house for attaching the movables on 28.11.2024 and he contacted his counsel, who filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and he was informed that appeal was already dismissed on 13.10.2023 itself; that he was also informed that his counsel failed to file any copy application for getting certified copy of the judgment passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and hence, he requested the counsel to get the copies and accordingly, copy application was made on 06.12.2024 and the certified copies were made ready on 10.12.2024 and the same was dispatched on 11.12.2024; that the petitioner has thereafter approached the present counsel for taking further action; that he was advised to file review application, after going th