CM-28428-CII-2018

1. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of extraordinary and inordinate delay 7014 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-appellants that in respect of the accident that took place in the intervening night of 15/16.03.1995, 05 claim petitions including the petition filed by the appellants herein were filed; all of which were consolidated vide order dated 14.09.1996 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala; and all the petitions were decided by one common Award dated 18.02.1999. It is contended that thereafter, several first appeals were filed before this Court i.e. by the respondent-Insurance Company; and by the claimants, as well. It is submitted that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that their appeal had also been filed before this Court; but later on they came to know that no appeal is pending on their behalf before this Court. It is submitted that therefore, the present delay has occurred on account of the above misapprehension of the applicant/appellants.

3. Further, it is submitted that applicant/appellant No. 1 became widow at a very young age with a child below 05 years of age; and she was illiterate and was under bona fide belief that appeal on her behalf had already been filed before this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present application may be allowed and delay of 7014 days in filing the present appeal, be condoned.

4. Heard.

5. The reasons given by the applicant-appellants in the application do not constitute a cogent or plausible explanation for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 7014 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The cryptic explanation furnished by the applicant-appellants does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’. In recent years, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the malaise of lackadaisical litigants. It is to be appreciated that over a period of time the rights of the parties get crystallised. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently; as it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned. This is the very purpose of the law of limitation. In the present case, the applicants clearly, harboured their misapprehension that appeal had been filed on their behalf, for years together. Applicants were therefore not diligent in pursuing their case. Delay in pursuing a remedy leads to the party, losing his/her right to pursue the appeal. Besides being prejudicial to the rights of the other party. Reference in this regard is made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2537649, as under:-

“25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to f