A delay in filing appeals may be condoned if not due to negligence, considering bona fide circumstances such as summer vacations.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

5 27-01-2026 I.A. No. 1 of 2026 in Commercial Appeal No. 05 of

2024 and I.A. No. 1 of 2026 in Commercial Appeal No. 06 of

2024 Both the interlocutory applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the present appeals.

2. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he is not required to file any response but his submissions may be recorded in opposition.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Commercial Appeal No. 05 of 2024 has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 115 of 2022 and Commercial Appeal No. 06 of 2024 has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 113 of 2022. The certified copy of the orders were applied for on 28.03.2024 and were obtained by learned counsel for the appellant on 02.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel submits that after obtaining the certified copy of the orders, the same were sent to the Local Controlling Office and thereafter, the Local Controlling Office sent the certified copy of the judgments to the Head Office for opinion. After taking opinion, the files reached the Regional Office of the appellant for filing appeals. Ultimately, it was handed over to the empanelled counsel of the insurance company-the appellant on 08.05.2024 for drafting. The draft appeals were ready on 17.05.2024 whereafter it was vetted and it could be e-filed on 12.06.2024. The physical copies were presented in the office of this Court on 13.06.2024. It is stated that the last working day of the High Court before going for summer vacation was 17.05.2024 and because of this scheduled summer vacation, learned counsel for the appellant remained under an impression that the last day for filing of the appeals would be the opening of the office after the summer vacation. Because of this mistake on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant, a delay of 16 days has taken place. It is submitted that considering the bona fide mistake on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant, the delay may be condoned. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no bona fide reason for the delay of 16 days in presenting the appeal. It is submitted that the office of this Court remains open for accepting the memorandum of appeal with the permission of Joint Registrar (Judicial) and in any case, where the period of limitation is likely to expire during the summer vacation, the permission is granted for filing of the appeal. In this case also, learned counsel for the appellant has e-filed the appeals on 12.06.2024 i.e. during the summer vacation and presented the physical copy of the appeals on 13.06.2024, therefore, he filed the appeals during the summer vacation itself but in the meantime, the delay of 16 days has taken place. It is his submission that the kind of reasons shown by the appellant in the I.As. would not be covered under Section 4 or Section 5 of the Limitation Act , hence, the applications are liable to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Private Ltd. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 Relying upon paragraph ‘63’ of the said judgment, learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that only in a fit case in which the party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond the period of limitation may be condoned and that would be in the discretion of the Court. In this case, the reasons shown