IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

219 Date of decision: 12.09.2025 FAO-1465-2015(O&M)

Dharambir Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rajesh @ Kala & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

FAO-918-2019(O&M)

Geeta ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rajesh @ Kala & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellant/claimant No.2 in FAO-1465-2015.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the appellant/claimant No.1 in FAO-918-2019.

Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company in both cases.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-3041-CII-2019 IN FAO-918-2019 Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1846 days in filing the present appeal.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant/appellant was dependent on deceased and is under shock due to death of the deceased in the accident in question. After the passing of the Award, the claimant/appellant could not arrange for the resources for filing the case before this Hon’ble Court. The money in the present case is disbursed in 2017. Thereafter, she was under belief that appeal has been filed but in first week of January, when she contacted the trial Court counsel, she came to know that appeal in the present case has not been filed.

CM-4129-CII-2015 IN FAO-1465-2015 Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed seeking condonation of delay of 260 days in filing the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay is not intentional but is beyond the control of the appellant. The appellant belongs to village and he was not aware about the passing of the Award. When the appellant went to his counsel then he came to know that the case had already been decided. Then the appellant applied for the certified copy of the Award. Due to the death of his only son, the appellant was mentally disturbed and he was not in a position to file an appeal against the impugned Award. Moreover, the appellant is old man and very poor person. Due to lack of money, he could not file appeal against the impugned Award in time. The appellant could not arrange money in time to file the present appeal. After taking the Award money, the appellant reached Chandigarh on 09.08.2014 and engaged counsel for filing the appeal. Due to the above-

mentioned reasons, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that no ground is made out for condonation of afore-said inordinate and extraordinary delay in filing both the appeals.

Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the applications is made.

Heard.

The above cited reasons are vague and do not constitute sufficient cause to condone extraordinary delay of 260 and 1846 days in filing the afore-said appeals. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. Reliance may be placed upon judgment of this Court in FAO-6193-2014 reserved on 21.04.2023 and pronounced on 01.05.2023 titled as “Pahlad & Another Vs. Jagatpal & Others”, wherein there was delay of 1087 days in which case the appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay. Again similar view has been taken in judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Nripen Sarma (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 252922; judgment of High Court of Sikkim in I.A. No.1 of 2020 in MAC App. No.11 of 2020 Law Finder Doc ID 1831873 titled as “The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dechen Ongmoo Lepcha and Others” decided on 19.03.2021, and judgment of this Court in Taro Devi v. Surinder Batra, (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID #

1495327; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Veeran, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 1577622; and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sudesh Juneja, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID #

964131.

As such, no ground is made out for c