The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing an appeal seeking condonation of delay, observed that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the litigant.
Brief Facts:
The appellant filed a First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ District Judge, Lucknow, under Sections 165, 166 and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The same was filed after a delay of 3107 days. It was the case of the appellant that the council had not been informed about the decision in the claim petition, and the person doing pairvi on behalf of the appellant had passed away 4 years ago. Thereafter, a second affidavit was filed pleading that the appellant is a “Pardanashin Lady”, and since her husband had died during COVID, she was in trauma, and therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the impugned order was passed 6 years before the death of the appellant's (proprietor) husband and 4 years from the death, and the pariokar would only be acting on the instructions of the appellant and the appellant was negligent in doing the pairvi of the case. The court stated that since it was convinced that the cause for delay condonation was not sufficient, there was no need to call for objections from the other side.
The court referred to the decision in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai, wherein it was held that where the explanation for delay condonation is found to be concocted, and the applicant has been negligent in pursuing his case, the delay may not be condoned and further the decision of Sheo Raj Singh & Others Vs. Union of India and Another, wherein the court held that the difference between “excuses” and “explanation” is considered while condoning the delay.
It was held by the court that a litigant who is so negligent that he/she would not inquire about the status of the case for such a long period in which the allegations are against him/her and he/she has put in an appearance and filed written statement and documents, cannot be said to be prevented from sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time because if he/she has not pursued the case diligently and has been negligent in doing so cannot be said to have been prevented, therefore the grounds taken are nothing but excuses for such a long delay and such a litigant is not entitled to any discretion of Court.
The decision of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had failed to show any sufficient ground for condonation of delay of 3107 days and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Ms. Supreme Transport Company vs. Smt. Suman Devi and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajnish Kumar
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11036 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Afaq Zaki Khan
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
