Jharkhand High Court
Umesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 467 of 2016
Umesh Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Awdhesh Singh, R/o Village-Sakari,
P.O. & P.S.-Kudra, Dist.-Kaimur (Bihar) .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Commanding Officer, 523 ASC Battalion,
C/o 56 APO
2. Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Lines,
G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, Dist.-Sasaram
.... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-1 : Mr. Ravi Prakash, C.G.C
For the Respondent-2 : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
12 / Dated : 19.08.2025
I.A. No. 6016 of 2016
1. Compensation Case No. 46/2005 was filed by Union of India through
Commanding Officer 523, ASC Battalion, C/o 56 APO, for
compensation with interest further damage to military vehicle being
caused by a civilian truck bearing Registration No. BR 24G - 7167.
2. The instant Appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against
the award of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in the interlocutory application
(I.A. No. 6016 of 2016) which has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 368 days in preferring the
misc. appeal.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
had no knowledge about the judgment and, therefore, the appeal could
not be filed within the stipulated time. Only when the notice of the
execution case was received, the appellant came to know that the
judgment has been delivered.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the appellant was a
party in the judgment, therefore, he cannot take a plea that he had no
knowledge for the disposal of the compensation case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both sides, principles for condoning
delay has been succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in GMG Engg.
2025:JHHC:24512
Industries & Ors. Vs. Issa Green Power Solution & Ors. (2015) 15
SCC 659, wherein it has been held,
"7. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" is to
receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.
When there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is
imputable to the appellants, the delay has to be condoned. The
discretion is to be exercised like any other judicial discretion with
vigilance and circumspection. The discretion is not to be exercised
in any arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner. The true test is to see
whether the applicant has acted with due diligence."
In Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer {(2013)
14 SCC 81} it has been held:
"11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal
interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so
long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be
imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has
been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and
no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal Vs. Shyamlal
[(2002) 1 SCC 535: AIR 2002 SC 100] and Ram Nath Sao Vs.
Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195: AIR 2002 SC 1201])."
12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may
harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its
rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to
extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result
flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no
power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a
distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may
cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court
has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The
legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is
the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently
been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be
considered while interpreting a statute."
7. In the above stated position of law, it was incumbent on the part of the
appellant to explain delay which he has miserably failed to do. No
reason has been assigned for the inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.
2025:JHHC:24512
Plea that the appellant was ignorant about the judgment cannot be
accepted for the reason that he had appeared before the trial Court and
participated in the proceeding. In this view of matter, I do not find any
merit in the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 6016 of 2016) which is,
accordingly, rejected.
Consequently, this Misc. Appeal stands dismissed for being filed
beyond the period of limitation.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satayendra
