Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar – Respondent
FAO-1860-2025 (O&M)
Important Points
Subject
Motor Accident Claims - Compensation Enhancement
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Appellate court cannot permit additional evidence to patch up lacuna in evidence unless party shows due diligence and inability to produce same at trial stage. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(C) Evidence - Credibility of witness - Prosecution witness turning hostile in criminal trial while supporting claim before Tribunal - Court held that claimant's side deposed falsely to obtain compensation amount, warranting rejection of testimony and potential perjury. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal in 2021. The appeal suffered from an 833-day delay in filing and a 139-day delay in refiling. Appellant also moved an application to produce additional evidence in the form of a disability certificate not produced before the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
Applications for condonation of delay and for production of additional evidence were dismissed for want of merit and explanation. The appeal was dismissed on both limitation grounds and merits due to contradictions in testimony between civil and criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing and refiling the appeal should be condoned; whether the appellant is entitled to additional evidence; and whether there is a case for enhancement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: Each day of delay must be explained with cogent reasoning for condonation; additional evidence under O. 41 R. 27 CPC cannot be used to fill lacunae. Contradictory statements given on oath in criminal versus civil proceedings render the witness unreliable and subject to perjury.
Result: Appeals dismissed on merits and grounds of limitation.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kuldeep Jhanjhariya
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to provide cogent reasons for delay in refiling appeal leads to dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. limitation period is strict and each day of delay must be explained mathematically. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. additional evidence under order 41 rule 27 cpc cannot be admitted to fill lacunae. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. claimants providing conflicting testimony in parallel criminal proceedings undermine credibility and may be liable for perjury. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
CM-5830-CII-2025
Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 139 days in refiling the accompanying appeal
2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants in the abovesaid application for condonation of 139 days delay in refiling the appeal is as under:-
“2. That the present appeal had been filed before this Hon'ble court on 09.09.2024 but thereafter certain objections were raised by the Registry of this Hon'ble Court on 13.09.2024. After receiving back, the paper book from the registry of this Hon'ble Court the brief of the present case got misplaced by the clerk during the shifting the office of undersigned counsel.
3. That while searching for some other documents, the paper book was found to the clerk of undersigned counsel. Thereafter, without any further delay the undersigned counsel is filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court, seeking therein an unconditional apology from this Hon'ble Court with a prayer to take precaution in the future.”
3. The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient cause to condone inordinate delay of 139 days in refiling the present appeal. No details have been given as to when the file was lost, and when it was retrieved. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
CM-5831-CII-2025
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 833 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
2. Ld. counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that delay of 833 days in filing the present appeal has occurred on account of the reasons as given in para 3,4 and 5 of the present application, which read as under: -
“3. That the present applicant-appellant is a poor person and rustic villager, the appellant is not well versed with the intricacies of legal procedure involved in filing present appeal.
4. That pertinently the impugned award dated 10.03.2021 was passed when the Covid-19 pandemic was prevailing in the whole world. When some relaxations were given then the appellant had contacted trial court counsel to refer him an advocate who can file an appeal against the impugned award in the High Court and accordingly the trial court counsel referred the name of an advocate who was practicing in this Hon'ble Court and consequently the appellant engaged that counsel to file the appeal and he was told by the said counsel that it would take at least 4-5 years to get the appeal decided.
5. That thereafter, when the appellant tried to contact the counsel of this Hon'ble Court then the appellant was shocked when it came to his knowledge that the counsel he had hired died during the Covid-19 pandemic and he has not even filed the appeal.”
3. I find no merit in the above said contention of the applicant. First of all, on a direct Court query, learned counsel for the applicant has been unable to inform this Court as to when compensation amount of Rs.55,513/- was released to the applicant. Furthermore, Covid was well over in the year 2022; whereas the present appeal has been filed only on 11.03.2025. Therefore, no cogent explanation has been given or sufficient cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal.
4. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025 INSC 1104 decided
