SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2107

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Aman Singh – Appellant
Versus
Umashankar – Respondent
MA 577/2016



Advocates:
Jai Prakash Mishra,

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3490

1 MA-577-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

ON THE 28th OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 577 of 2016

AMAN SINGH AND OTHERS

Versus

UMASHANKAR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anuraj Saxena- Advocate for appellants/claimant.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvansh-Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

ORDER

The present matter pertains to a miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 21/04/2015 passed by the

Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Motor Accident

Claim Case No.93/2013.

2.The appellants/claimants seek condonation of delay in filing the present appeal

by way of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (I.A. No.

2464/2016). It is submitted that the delay has occurred on account of bonafide reasons.

The appellants are rustic villagers and have no knowledge of law or legal proceedings.

It is further submitted that appellant No. 3 had received the certified copy of the

impugned award along with the office file of the case from the office of Shri Rakesh

Yadav, Advocate, Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.) in May 2015. However, due to

family problems, the said office file along with the certified copy of the impugned

award was misplaced from the office of the appellant No.3. It is further submitted that

appellant No. 3 thereafter recollected the case details and applied for a certified copy of

the award dated 21.04.2015 on 28.04.2016, which was made available on 04.05.2016.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:50:49 PM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3490

2 MA-577-2016

Thereafter, appellant No. 3 contacted Shri J. P. Mishra, Advocate, Gwalior (M.P.), for

preparation of the present appeal, and the same was thereafter filed before this Hon’ble

Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the delay in

filing the present appeal be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. Counsel for the respondent Nos 1 to 3 opposed the application for

condonation of delay on the grounds that the appellants have failed to explain the delay

adequately. Appellants were aware of the order passed by Claims Tribunal and

subsequent legal proceedings, yet they have not acted with due diligence in filing the

appeal within the prescribed period. It is further contended that the delay in filing the

appeal is substantial and no valid or sufficient explanation has been provided to justify

such a long delay.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5.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.

6. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the appellants does not

inspire confidence. The plea regarding misplacement of the case file and certified copy

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:50:49 PM

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3490

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top