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

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 748 of 2017 BANVARI LAL PACHOURI Versus BANVARI LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bhupendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal-Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER The present matter pertains to a miscellaneous appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 10/09/2015 passed by Fifth Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Morena (M.P.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.181/2015.

2. Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 3056/2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 514 days in filing the appeal. According to the appellant, the certified copy of the impugned award was applied for on 26.09.2015 and delivered on 05.11.2015. After excluding the period spent in obtaining the certified copy, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 22.01.2016. It is contended that due to permanent disability suffered by the appellant in the accident, his weak financial condition, prolonged medical treatment, and inability to arrange court fee and litigation expenses, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. It is further stated that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has opposed the application, submitting that the appellant has failed to explain the inordinate delay satisfactorily. It is argued that the appellant was fully aware of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and the legal remedies available, yet failed to act with due diligence. The delay of 514 days is substantial, and vague assertions regarding financial hardship and illness do not constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

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

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, apart from making general assertions regarding financial hardship and medical condition, the appellant has not placed on record any cogent or convincing material to substantiate that the delay of 514 days was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control. No specific details have been furnished to explain the prolonged period of inaction after receipt of the certified copy of the award. Mere poverty or difficulty in arranging court fee, without adequate explanation for each period of delay, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the settled principles of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3056/2017 is dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

No ord