[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shyamlal Kushwaha vs Lakchandhari Yadav on 26 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:9940
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 212 of 2021
Shyamlal Kushwaha S/o Late Devnath Kushwaha Aged About 45
Years R/o Village Harrapara, Police Station And Tahsil
Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Lakchandhari Yadav S/o Lalman Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Bedmi, Police Station Ramkola, And Tahsil Odgi, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Rampatiya Bai Yadava W/o Lakchandhari Yadav Aged About 45
Years R/o Village Bedmi, Police Station Ramkola, And Tahsil
Odgi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
3. Santosh Rajwar S/o Niranjan Rajwar Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village Jhilmili, Dhawaidand, Police Station Jhilmili, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Driver)
4. Basanti Rajwar D/o Late Niranjan Rajwar Aged About 40 Years
R/o Village Jhilmili, Dhawaidand, Police Station Jhilmili, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
5. Kulmati D/o Late Niranjan Rajwar Aged About 20 Years R/o
Village Jhilmili, Dhawaidand, Police Station Jhilmili, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
6. Parmodh S/o Late Niranjan Rajwar Aged About 21 Years R/o
Village Jhilmili, Dhawaidand, Police Station Jhilmili, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
26.2.2026
1) Heard on I.A. No. 1/2021, an application for condonation of delay
in filing the appeal.
2) The appellant/ registered owner of the offending vehicle has filed
this appeal assailing the award dated 28.6.2019 passed in Claim
Case No. 32/2018 by the learned Second Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
whereby compensation of Rs. 4,85,000/- has been awarded with
interest @ 9% p.a. on account of death of Bhagwan Das.
3) Mr. G.P. Shukla, counsel for the appellant submits that there is a
delay of 166 days in filing the instant appeal. He further submits
that the appellant was not aware of the legal proceeding and law
of limitation and when he approached the local counsel, he was
advised to file Misc. Appeal. Thereafter, he managed money to file
the appeal ; applied certified copy of award and after receiving the
same, they have preferred this Misc. Appeal. He contends that the
appellant could not file the instant appeal within the stipulated
period owing to the Covid-19 outbreak.
4) On the other hand, Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, counsel appearing for
respondents No. 1 and 2 would oppose. She submits that
appellant has filed this appeal with delay of 166 days and
sufficient reasons have not been explained in the application for
condonation of delay, therefore this appeal deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
5) Heard.
6) Admittedly, the award was passed on 28.6.2019 and this appeal
was preferred on 3.3.2021. In the application for condonation of
delay, the appellant, who is owner of offending vehicle has stated
that he was not aware of the proceedings and the law of limitation.
It is further stated that he approached the local counsel belatedly
and thereafter filed the appeal. The plea of Covid-19 outburst has
also been taken. Prior to March, 2020, there was no Covid-19
outburst and the award was passed on 28.6.2019, whereas the
appeal was preferred on 3.3.2021.
7) It seems that the appellant remained inactive for period of 2 years
9 months, which suggests a lack of diligence in pursuing the case.
Given the substantial delay of 166 days excluding covid period,
the appellant has not provided sufficient justification for the
inaction.
8) Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy
& Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs. 1 held
courts cannot use a "liberal approach" to condone inordinate,
unjustified delays caused by a party's own negligence. Relevant
paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below :-
13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High
Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What
was the good reason for the High Court to ignore
1. [2025] 1 SCR 764
all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has
reminded the District judiciary as well the High
courts that the concepts such as "liberal
approach", "Justice oriented approach",
"substantial justice" should not be employed to
frustrate or jettison the substantial law of
limitation.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant
matter which the court must take into
consideration while considering whether the delay
should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the
approach of the respondents herein, it appears
that they want to fix their own period of limitation
for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for
which law has prescribed a period of limitation.
Once it is held that a party has lost his right to
have the matter considered on merits because of
his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed
to be non-deliberate delay and in such
circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to
plead that the substantial justice deserves to be
preferred as against the technical considerations.
While considering the plea for condonation of
delay, the court must not start with the merits of
the main matter. The court owes a duty to first
ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered
by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the
sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the
opposition of the other side is equally balanced
that the court may bring into aid the merits of the
matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is
not merely a technical consideration. The rules of
limitation are based on the principles of sound
public policy and principles of equity. No court
should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging
over the head of litigant for an indefinite period of
time.
9) Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.
Guruswamy (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the appellant
has not explained the delay properly, therefore the application for
condonation of delay [I.A. No. 1/2021] is liable to be and is hereby
rejected.
10) Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
Digitally
signed by
AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.02.26
16:56:36
+0530
