Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mst Maharaniya Singh vs Hanshraj Sukla on 15 February, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 808 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MST MAHARANIYA SINGH W/O LATE URMILA
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KHAMHARIYA P.S AND TEHSIL KOTAR DISTRICT
SATNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHANU PRATAP SINGH S/O LATE URMILA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KHAMHARIYA P.S. AND TEHSIL KOTAR DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O LATE URMILA
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KHAMHARIYA P.S. AND TEHSIL KOTAR DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. PRIYANSHI SINGH D/O BHANU PRATAP
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER IN LAW APPELLANT NO. 1 MST.
MAHARANIYA SINGH W/O LATE URMLA SNGH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O VILLAGE
KHAMHARIYA P.S. AND TEHSIL KOTAR DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KU. PRATIGYA SINGH D/O BHANU PRATAP SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER IN
LAW APPELLANT NO. 1 MST. MAHARANIYA
SINGH W/O LATE URMLA SNGH AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS R/O VILLAGE KHAMHARIYA P.S. AND
TEHSIL KOTAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. YASHWANT SINGH S/O CHNDRA PRADAU SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER IN
LAW APPELLANT NO. 1 MST. MAHARANIYA
SINGH W/O LATE URMLA SNGH AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS R/O VILLAGE KHAMHARIYA P.S. AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 2/16/2024
12:18:59 PM
2
TEHSIL KOTAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SUSHIL GIRI GOSWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HANSHRAJ SUKLA S/O SHRI RAJKARAN SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
OF VEHICLE MP 19CA5623 R/O VILAGE
GAJGAWAN POS GADHWA P.S KOTAR DISTRICT
SATNA MP. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SORYABHAN SHUKLA S/O RAMADHAR SHUKLA
R/O VILLAGE GAJGAWAN POST GADHWA P.S.
KOTAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL
OFFICE CITY TRADE CENTER CHOURASIYA
BUILDING NEAR BUS STAND REWA ROAD SATNA
TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.2170/2023, which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the miscellaneous
appeal.
2. Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by 1384 days.
3. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants
challenging award dtd. 16.11.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Satna in Claim Case No.253/2018 whereby claim petition has been dismissed
holding thereby that no accident occurred with the car no. MP 19/CA 5623 but
the accident appears to have occurred with the Commander Jeep No. MP
19E/1338.
4. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that as the appellant had no knowledge about the legal
proceedings, therefore, delay of 1384 days has occurred in filing of the
miscellaneous appeal.
5. Learned counsel submits that sufficient cause mentioned in the application
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be considered liberally. In
support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
With these submissions, he prays for allowing the application for condonation
of delay.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
7. Except one line contention of having no knowledge about the legal
proceedings, no other contention has been made in the application. The
application is supported by affidavit of appellant 2-Bhanupratap Singh, whereas
there are total 6 appellants, but nothing has been stated about all the appellants.
This is not the case of the appellants that they were not aware about the
impugned award passed by MACT on 16.11.2018. It is well settled that
ignorance of law is no excuse. From the application, it is also clear that it is very
sketchy and does not give any reasonable or proper explanation of 1384 days.
8. Because the award was passed on 16.11.2018 and lockdown was declared
on 22.03.2020, therefore, the decision in the case of Re:Cognizance(supra) is
not applicable to the instant case.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another (2008) 17 SCC 448, has
observed that the Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the
ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant
and "do not slumber over their rights". The aforesaid judgment has further been
followed recently in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy
Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC 332.
10. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of 1384 days'
delay in filing of the miscellaneous appeal, the IA No.2170/2023 deserves to
be and is hereby dismissed.
11. Resultantly, the miscellaneous appeal is also dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
