A delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if sufficiently explained and if the party acted bona fide without negligence.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

6 03-12-2025 I.A. No. 1 of 2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent who has appeared through video conferencing.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the instant appeal against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 133 of

2022.

3. The stamp reporter has given a note that there is a delay of 05 months and 23 days.

4. Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 133 of 2022 was filed before the learned District Judge, Patna on 22.10.2022 whereafter it was adjourned from time to time and could be finally heard on 25.07.2023 on the point of admission and limitation. The learned court reserved the case for orders fixing 17.08.2023. It is submitted that the said order was not pronounced in the open court, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants did not know whether the order had been passed on the said date. The appellants got knowledge of the order on 02.12.2023 whereafter the learned counsel for the appellants applied for the certified copy of the order which was received on 06.12.2023.

5. It is further submitted that after taking approval and sanction from the competent authority of the Railway, the matter was sent to the Railway lawyer who was a Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India for drafting and to challenge the order but in the meantime, the panel of the Railway lawyers and the Central Government Counsel changed on 28.02.2023, therefore, the appeal could not be filed. It is further submitted that after fresh appointment of the Central Government Counsel, the Senior Divisional Engineer-II, EC Railway, Danapur vide his Letter dated 05.03.2024 requested the Additional Solicitor General of India, Patna High Court for appointment of new counsel and thereafter, the present case was entrusted to the present counsel who took steps to file the appeal with an application for condonation of delay.

6. It is submitted that there is no intentional delay or laches on the part of the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that serious prejudice will be caused if the present appeal is not heard on its own merit.

7. Although, the copy of the application seeking condonation of delay was served upon the sole respondent, no affidavit in opposition has been filed.

8. Mr. Bhavneet Singh, learned counsel for the sole respondent has, however, argued that the reasons shown by the appellants for condonation of delay cannot be taken as sufficient and cogent reasons for condonation of delay. It is submitted that in the District Courts normally, when a date is fixed for passing of the order, the order is not pronounced in the open court and it is for the counsel for the parties to ensure that they apply for the certified copy of the order and take appropriate steps. In this case, learned District Judge passed the order on 17.08.2023 which was the date fixed in the matter, therefore, it was the responsibility of learned counsel for the appellants to apply for the certified copy immediately within a reasonable time. If learned counsel for the appellants has not taken appropriate steps with due diligence and care, the appellants are liable to suffer.

9. Learned counsel further placed before this Court the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Supriya Raju Mehta Vs. National Highway Authority of India and Others in Arbitration Appeal No. 20 of 2022, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the case of The Project Director, UPHSDP, Lucknow and Others Vs. Commerical Court No. 1, Lucknow and Others in Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Defective No. 9 of 2025. Learned counsel has rel