Jammu & Kashmir High Court
M/S Okara Roadlines vs Jagdish Raj And Others on 3 August, 2021
225
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CONC No.95/2016
M/s Okara Roadlines ....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. R.P Sharma, Advocate.
V/s
Jagdish Raj and Others ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Garima Gupta, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Instant application has been filed by the applicant/appellant seeking
to condone the delay of 250 days in filing the accompanied appeal against the
award dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Kathua under Employee‟s Compensation Act in file No.Death/W.C Act/2015 in
case title „Jagdish Raj and Others Vs. Bhim Badwa and Another‟, whereby an
award of Rs.11,45,284/- was passed in favour of the claimants/respondents
herein.
2. On going through the contents of the application, it has been emerged
that this application has been drafted in a very vague manner and no plausible
explanation warranting condonation of delay has been made.
3. The law on the subject regarding Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
no more res integra in view of the decisions rendered and delivered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on the said subject.
4. It is established that the law being limitation has to be applied with
all its rigor prescribed by a statute. Although Section 5 of Limitation Act
provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, and
appellant/applicant seeking such extension is required to satisfy the court that
there has been a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the
application within the prescribed period.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in „Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswam vs.
Bhargavi Amma', 2008 (8) SCC 321, at para 13 (iii) enunciated besides others
the following principle qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
"The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the
length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory
explanation."
6. A reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR
1998 SC 2276, titled as „P.K. Ramachadran v. State of Kerala‟ would also be
appropriate and advantageous, wherein at para 6 following is noticed.
"6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular
party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the
statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to
extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
The discretion exercised by the High Court was thus,
neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the
delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore,
succeeds and the impugned order is set aside.
Consequently, the application for condonation of delay
filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the
Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as
barred by time. No costs."
7. The application in hand apparently, is filed with the impression that in
seeking condonation of delay, the expression 'sufficient cause' would receive as
liberal construction in favor of the applicant. It is however, manifest and without
any doubt that the explanation offered by the applicant in the application in hand
cannot by any sense of imagination said to be sufficient, plausible, and cogent.
The explanation per se is cryptic and casual.
8. Viewed in the context what has been observed, considered and analyzed
hereinabove, the application in hand is found to be without any merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed, as a consequence whereof the accompanying appeal
shall also stand dismissed. Original record along with copy of this order be
forwarded to the Court below.
(Tashi Rabstan)
Judge
JAMMU
03.08.2021
Surinder
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
SURINDER KUMAR
2021.08.06 11:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
