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

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 3928 of 2017 SMT. SHEELA BARSENA Versus UMESH PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Naresh Singh Pal - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.2- Insurance Company.

None for rest of respondents though served.

ORDER Heard on IA No. 19320 of 2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by appellant- owner of offending vehicle seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant misc. appeal against the impugned Award dated 23-07-2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gohad, District Bhind in Claim Case No. 13 of 2013.

2. As per Office note, there is delay of 426 days in filing the appeal.

3. It is contended on behalf of appellant that the appeal was required to be filed before the Court by 27-10-2017. However, the appellant's lawyer in Gohad, who is a subordinate court advocate, informed her that there was no time limit in claim cases. Due to this advice, the appellant could not approach her lawyer in time. After a considerable delay, the appellant met with her lawyer on 12-11-2017, who informed her that an award had been passed against her. On 15-11-2017, the appellant filed an application for the certified copy of the award, which was promised to be provided soon thereafter. On 13-12-2017, the appellant deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the subordinate court. It was only on 20-12-2017, when the appellant received the necessary information, that she came to Gwalior and contacted her advocate, who then informed her that the period for filing the appeal had expired. On 21-12-2017, the appellant got the appeal prepared and filed it before this Court. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeal is due to a misunderstanding caused by the advice of the lawyer and that she is a woman who was unaware of the legal timelines. She prays that the delay be condoned, as the delay was caused in good faith and she wishes to have her appeal adjudicated on its merits.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Insurance Company opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

5. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and contents of application, it is found that the appellant has failed to provide sufficient justification for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The limitation period for filing an appeal is prescribed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a mandatory provision. Inordinate delays are not to be condoned merely based on ignorance of law, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762], held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal interpretation. However, it was further emphasized by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter o f Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107] that a party seeking condonation of delay must show that the delay was not due to negligence or lack of due diligence.

7. In the present case, the delay of over a year in filing the appeal has not been sufficiently explained. The appellant's explanation, including reliance on incorrect advice from her lawyer, does not constitute "sufficient cause" as per the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The law does not allow condonation of delay merely on the ground of ignorance of legal timelines or failure to understand the legal process.

9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to demonstrate a "sufficient cause" as per the provisions of the Limitation Act. Consequently, IA No.

19320 of 2017 is hereby rejected.

10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as time-barred.

(HIRDESH)

JUDGE MKB