Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Shobha Ashok Jadhav And Ors on 30 March, 2021
Bench: P. K. Chavan
10-CAF-23-2017.doc
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2017
IN
FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.30357 OF 2016
United India Insurance Company Limited ] Applicant
Vs.
Shobha Ashok Jadhav and others. ] Respondents
.....
Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b K.M.C. Legal Venture, for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. S. S. Vidyarthi a/w Ms. Ruchika Dave, for Respondents No.1 to 3.
.....
CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
DATE : 30th MARCH, 2021.
P.C.
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1819 days
in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Chairman, M.A.C.T, Mumbai on 12 th July,
2011 in M.A.C.P No.1090 of 1999.
2. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to
paragraph 3 of the application wherein it is mentioned that after
delivery of the judgment and award on 12th July, 2011, application
for certified copy itself was made on 26 th September, 2016 i.e after
five years. There is no justification as to why there was such a
long delay in making an application for obtaining certified copy of
1 of 4
10-CAF-23-2017.doc
the impugned judgment and award. From the tenor of the
application, it is quite apparent that the concerned officers of the
United India Insurance Company Limited simply passed the buck
by shirking their responsibilities in ensuring that the appeal is filed
as expeditiously as possible.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vidyarti has strongly objected the
prayer of the applicant by contending that the claimants have been
deprived of their legitimate right to get the compensation for a
long period of 23 years i.e from the date of the accident.
5. In order to buttress his submissions, Mr. Vidyarthi has
pressed into service a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of West Bengal,
(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 52. He drew my attention to
paragraph 10 of the said judgment which reads thus;
"10. In the instant case as noticed above, admittedly
earlier objection filed by the Respondent-State
under Section 47 of the Code was dismissed on
17.8.2010. Instead of challenging the said order the
Respondent-State after about one year filed another
objection on 15.9.2011 under Section 47 of the
Code which was finally rejected by the executing
court. It was only after a writ of attachment was
issued by the executing court the respondent
preferred civil revision against the first order dated
17.8.2010 along with a petition for condonation of
delay. Curiously enough in the application for
condonation of delay no sufficient cause has been
2 of 4
10-CAF-23-2017.doc
shown which entitle the respondent to get a
favourable order for condonation of delay. True it is,
that courts should always take liberal approach in
the matter of condonation of delay, particularly
when the appellant is the State but in a case where
there is serious laches and negligence on the part of
the State in challenging the decree passed in the
suit and affirmed in appeal, the State cannot be
allowed to wait to file objection under Section 47
till the decree holder puts the decree in execution.
As noticed above, the decree passed in the year
1967 was in respect of declaration of title and
permanent injunction restraining the Respondent-
State from interfering with the possession of the suit
property of the appellant-plaintiff. It is evident that
when the State tried to interfere with possession the
decree holder had no alternative but to levy the
execution case for execution of the decree with
regard to interference with possession. In our
opinion their delay in filing the execution case
cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing
the revision against the order refusing to entertain
objection under Section 47 CPC. This aspect of the
matter has not been considered by the High Court
while deciding petition for condoning the delay.
Merely because the Respondent is the State, delay
in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not
be mechanically considered and in absence of
'sufficient cause' delay shall not be condoned".
3 of 4
10-CAF-23-2017.doc
6. No doubt, normally, a liberal approach is taken while
condoning the delay and the matters are adjudicated upon
merits. However, the parties seeking condonation of delay must
show sufficient cause which lacks in the instant case. Rather, it is
apparent from the application itself that the applicant was so
negligent and lethargic that it took five years to file an appeal.
7. The ratio laid down in the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera
(supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. I,
therefore, do not find any merit in the application and hence, it
stands rejected.
FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.33057 OF 2016
a/w
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2017
1. In view of the rejection of the application for
condonation of delay, appeal shall stand dismissed.
2. Liberty to the respondents-claimants to withdraw the
entire amount of compensation with accrued interest.
3. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]
4 of 4
