IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1035 of 2015 BADAN SINGH AND OTHERS Versus SANTHOSH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Om Prakash Singhal - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Kamal Kumar Rochalani - Advocate for respondent No.3.

Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta- Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER

1. The present matter pertains to a miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bhind in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 43/2012.

2. The appellants/claimants have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (IA No. 5061 of 2015) seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are illiterate rural persons and were bona fide misled by their previous counsel, who wrongly advised them that there was no limitation for filing an appeal in a motor accident claim case and further assured them that the appeal had already been filed. It is submitted that the appellants remained under such bona fide belief until 14.10.2015, when they came to know that no appeal had been filed and the case file was returned to them. Immediately thereafter, they engaged a new counsel and filed the appeal on 16.10.2015. It is, therefore, contended that the delay of 1 year and 55 days is neither intentional nor deliberate and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not merely procedural but are intended to prevent inordinate delay in the administration of justice. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the expression "sufficient cause" should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, particularly in matters where the rights of parties are at stake. However, the Court also emphasized that the delay should not be condoned in a routine manner, and a party seeking condonation must demonstrate sufficient and reasonable cause. Further, in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that delay should not be condoned unless there is a reasonable explanation for the same. It was observed that in cases where an applicant fails to show that the delay was caused due to circumstances beyond their control, the courts are not bound to condone the delay.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application for condonation of delay, contending that the appellants were well aware of the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal and have failed to act with due diligence in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It is submitted that the delay is substantial and no sufficient or satisfactory explanation has been furnished to justify such inordinate delay.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay, this Court finds that the appellants have failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the present appeal. Mere assertion that the appellants are illiterate rural persons and were allegedly misled by their previous counsel, without placing any cogent material or specific particulars on record, is insufficient to constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellants were admittedly aware of the Award dated 22.08.2014, yet no plausible explanation has been furnished for their inaction during the intervening period.

The explanation offered lacks due diligence and does not inspire confidence. 8. It is a settled principle of law that delay in filin