Dubliya Ninama vs Gopal
2023 Latest Caselaw 14371 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                            ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                              MISC. APPEAL No. 1004 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DUBLIYA NINAMA S/O SHRI MANGLA NINAMA, AGED
                           ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE KAKAD
                           KUA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT JHABUA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI RIZWAN NIZAM, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           1.    GOPAL S/O MUN SINGH MEDHA, AGED ABOUT 25
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER VILALGE KHEDA
                                 TEHSIL AND     DISTRICT JHABUA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)(OWNER OF PICK UP JEEP MP-45-G-
                                 1439)

                           2.    DITIYA S/O BHUWAN OCCUPATION: OWNER R/O
                                 VILLAGE AAMLI PATHAR POST KALYANPURA
                                 TEH. AND DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                 (DRIVER OF PICK UP JEEP MP-G-1439)

                           3.    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                 TP HUB THROUGH MANAGER ADDRESS 5TH
                                 FLOOR IDA BUILDING, RACE COURSE ROAD,
                                 DISTRICT   INDORE   (MADHYA     PRADESH)
                                 (INSURANCE COMPANY OF PICK UP JEEP MP-45-
                                 G-1439)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI RAMESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT NO.3)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                            ORDER

Heard on I.A.No.3077/2022 an application under Section 5 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 05-09-2023 12:13:40

Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

2. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement being aggrieved by award dated 21.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Member, MACT, Jhabua in Claim Case No.108/2018. The appeal is barred by 827 days.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a poor, illiterate and rustic villager and resides in a remote area and not aware of legal formalities as a result of which appeal could not be filed by the appellant within stipulated time period as provided under the Limitation Act. He further submitted that due to the outbreak of Pandemic Covid-19 the normal functioning of the Hon'ble High Court was suspended. It is also submitted that

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Moto PIL has condoned the delay incurred during the Covid period from March, 2020 to February, 2022. It is further submitted that due to permanent disability and poor health the appellant was fully dependent on the other family members for movement as they went to neighbouring State for doing labour work so no one could accompany him to prefer appeal. Thereafter, due to Covid Pandemic the physical movement was restricted. Therefore, the said appeal was filed with a delay of 827 days. Hence, prays that the delay of 827 days incurred in filing the appeal be condoned being bona fide and appeal be heard on merits in the interest of justice.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that appellant has no right to seek condonation of delay. No valid explanation has been given for the delay. He further submitted that the award was passed on 21.08.2019 and Covid-19 Pandemic started from March, 2020, therefore, application for condonation of delay as well as miscellaneous appeal be dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 05-09-2023 12:13:40

5. In the case of Sridevi Datla Vs. Union of India reported in (2021) 5 SCC 321 the Apex Court held as under:-

25. The court also emphasized that each case has to be balanced on the basis of its facts and the surrounding circumstances in which the parties act and behave.

26. Yet another dimension to the issue was highlighted in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai19, where the court underlined a distinction between a case where the delay is inordinate, and a case where the delay is of few days and that in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor; in the latter case, no such consideration arises. After noticing that a liberal and justice-oriented approach needs to be taken, it was stated that the court, equally should be sensitive to the fact that "the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost." The court then held that:

"24. What colour the expression 'sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay."

27. It is evident that the term sufficient cause is relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and the behaviour of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay (in approaching the court). However, what can broadly be said to be universally accepted is that in principle, the applicant must display bona fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay occasioned should not be such that condoning it would seriously prejudice the other party.

6. In this case, the appellant has not given bona fide reason for filing Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 05-09-2023 12:13:40

this appeal within the limitation period. The award was passed on 21.08.2019 and this appeal was filed after 827 days which is a long period and the delay is not properly explained by the appellant. In the case of Bank of India Vs. Sawai Singh reported in 1998 (1) JLJ 51 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that there is no place of negligency in the Court and it is the duty of the Court to prevent such type of negligent parties. In the case of Hameed Joharan (D) and others Vs. Abdul Salam (D) by L.Rs. and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 3404 the Apex Court held that the Court cannot tolerate negligent parties because they effected the justice system.

7. On perusal of the application and the above citations it is found that the appellant had not explained properly the delay so the delay cannot be condoned. No case for condonation of delay of 827 days is made out as the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for it, coupled with the fact that the appellant is negligent.

Hence, application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and resultantly Miscellaneous Appeal is also dismissed.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE RJ

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 05-09-2023 12:13:40