Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Raj Kumari & Others vs Sh. Vijay Pal & Others on 5 December, 2023
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No.130 of 2023 in
FAOST No.32089 of 2022
Decided on: 05.12.2023
Smt. Raj Kumari & Others .... Applicants/appellants.
of
Versus
Sh. Vijay Pal & others .... Respondents.
Coram rt
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the applicants : Mr. Rajat Awasthi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this application, filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal.
2. The delay in filing the appeal as per the Registry of this
Court is of four years two months and thirteen days. The award was
passed by learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal on 15.09.2018
and the appeal assailing the same has been filed by the applicants
alongwith the application praying for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal on 29.11.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that delay
in filing the application is bonafide and the reason is that as the
applicants were not aware about the adjudication of the Claim
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
.
Petition by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the delay occurred in
filing the application. No other point has been urged.
4. The respondents contest the said stand of the
applicants. Learned counsel for the nonapplicant/Insurance
of
Company has submitted that the very foundation laid down by the
applicants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is based
rt
on falsehood which is evident from the fact that on one hand, the
applicants are trying to justify the delay in filing the appeal on the
plea that they were not aware about the adjudication of the Claim
Petition by the learned Tribunal, but on the other hand before the
filing of the appeal they had already approached the learned
Tribunal where the amount was deposited, for release of the
amount. Accordingly, it has been argued on behalf of the
respondents that as the applicants have not approached the Court
with clean hands, the application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having carefully gone through the averments made in the
application as well as the reply filed thereto by respondent No.5,
this Court is of the considered view that the delay of more than four
years and two months in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily
explained by the claimants.
6. As it could be disputed before the Court that before the
filing of the appeal alongwith this application, the applicants had
.
approached the learned Tribunal for release of the award amount,
in this background the contention of the applicants before this
Court that delay occurred on account of their not being aware about
the passing of the award, but natural is totally incorrect.
of
7. It is settled law that with the passage of time and with
the expiry of limitation, valuable right accrues on the other side and
rt
this right cannot be taken away by the Court until and unless the
party seeking condonation of delay, satisfies the Court that the
delay was bonafide.
8. Herein, it cannot be said that this condition has been
satisfied by the applicants as the averments made in the application
and the contentions that have been urged before the Court so as to
explain the delay are based on falsehood.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this
is not a fit case wherein the huge delay of more than four years and
two months in filing the appeal can be condoned.
10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed, so also is the
fate of the appeal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 05, 2023
(Rishi)
