IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

246 FAO-2276-2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Harmeet Kaur ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Pushap Kumar & Another ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aseem Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-8307-CII-2023 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 144 days in filing the appeal.

The reason given in the application seeking condonation of delay of 144 days is contained in Para 2 of the application, which is as under:-

“2. That the present appeal could not be filed within a period of limitation due to the reason that the clerk of Counsel for the Appellant has placed all the documents including the judgment and the decrees passed by both the Courts below in a wrong brief (not pertaining to the case in hand). Despite best efforts made by the counsel and his clerk the documents pertaining to case in hand were not traceable/located.”

The above cited reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 144 days in filing the present appeal. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reliance may also be placed upon recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Others” Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay of 144 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed CM-8308-CII-2023 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the appeal.

The only reason given for condoning such inordinate delay is:

“2. That the present appeal could not be refiled within a period of limitation due to the reason that the petition got displaced in the registry during the process of filling That despite best efforts made by the counsel and his clerk the documents pertaining to case in hand were not traceable/located.”

The Law of Limitation is enacted with a purpose, as a hand-

maid of Justice and cannot be ignored/reduced to an ineffective piece of legislation by giving it the complete go-by. With passage of time, rights of the parties get crystallised. It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; and it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned.

It is my considered view that keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons cited by the applicant for condonation of delay, do not constitute sufficient cause. In view of above, present application is dismissed.

FAO-2276-2023 Present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.11,21,664/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 06.03.2020 passed in MACP Case No.34/2018 filed under Section 166 read with Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”), on account of death of her son Damanpreet Singh @ Daman, who was

22 years old at the time of accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that deceased Damanpreet Singh @ Daman had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 19.03.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.HP-24-C-7500 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. Respondent No.2 was held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that meagre amount has been awarded under loss of estate. Income of the deceased has also been taken on