The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court opined that the law of Limitation has to be applied with its full vigour and rigour. The consequences of it cannot be escaped and the extension is only allowed when a sufficient cause has been proved to the Court.
If there is no sufficient cause for the delay, the Courts cannot aid and rescue the litigant. If the applicant’s approach is casual and cryptic, the Court cannot help.
In the present case, the date when the Applicants got to know about the award was not specified and no justifiable cause had been pleaded. Therefore, the huge delay of 963 days could not be condoned, especially when no sufficient cause had been made out.
Brief Facts:
The Appellants (Applicants) sought for condonation of delay of about 963 days in filing the civil appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Contentions of the Applicants:
It was submitted that the counsel of the Applicants did not inform about the passing of such an award and the Applicants only came to know about it a few days ago. Hence, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was submitted that the limitation for filing an appeal is 90 days. Further, the counsel of the Applicants is a known efficient lawyer, and hence, alleging without naming the counsel has no value as such. Further, no case has been registered against the said counsel.
Observations of the Court:
It was opined that the Law of Limitation has to be applied with its full vigour and rigour. The consequences of it cannot be escaped and the extension is only allowed when a sufficient cause has been proved to the Court. If there is no sufficient cause for the delay, the Courts cannot aid and rescue the litigant. If the applicant’s approach is casual and cryptic, the Court cannot help.
In the present case, the date when the Applicants got to know about the award was not specified and no justifiable cause had been pleaded. Therefore, the huge delay of 963 days cannot be condoned, especially when no sufficient cause had been made out. No proper details, dates, or grounds were mentioned by the Applicants and further blaming the counsel for delay would not be of help to condone the reckless delay.
The decision of the Court:
Therefore, based on the findings, the High Court denied condoning the delay and accordingly, dismissed the application.
Case Title: Pooja Devi & Ors. V. Tarseem Lal & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Chowdhary
Case No: CONC No. 83/2018
Advocates for Applicants: Advs. Mr. Nigam Mehta, Mr. Raghu Mehta
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Mr. S. Baldev Singh
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
