Smt. Shobha vs Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 12356 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Shobha vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2024

                                       1




IN THE           HIGH COURT             OF MADHYA PRADESH

                            AT J A B A L P U R
                                     BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                         ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2024

                       MISC. APPEAL No. 3200 of 2022

Between:-
1. Smt. Shobha W/o. Late Krishna Kumar, Aged About 33
   Years, R/o. 50 Chandpur-1 Tehsil Rehli, District-Sagar
   (Madhya Pradesh).
2. Master Sanju(Minor) S/o. Late Shri Krish Kumar (Through
   Natural Guardian being Mother Smt. Shobna), R/o 50
   Chandpur-1 Tehsil Rehli, District-Sagar (Madhya Pradesh).

                                                                .....Appellants
(By Mrs. Aparna Singh - Advocate )

And
Union Of India Through General Manager West Central
Railway (Madhya Pradesh).

                                                               .....Respondent
(By Shri C.M. Tiwari - Advocate )

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                     ORDER

This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1189 days in filing the appeal in question. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 26.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 delivered by

Judicial Member as well as Technical Member seperately on individual capacity, Bhopal in case no.OA/II (u)/BPL/2014/0041. It is contended that she being a lady her husband died in railway accident and she became alone with a child and she has no knowledge of court proceedings, the matter got delayed and could not filed within time. However, the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and rather bona fide one. (2) The brief facts of this case are that the present appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 26.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 delivered by Judicial Member as well as Technical Member separately on individual capacity with a delay of 1189 days filed I.A. No.7463/2022 for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.

(3) The learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the claimants/appellants no.1 and 2 filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and the judgment dated 26.12.2018 and 01.01.2019 delivered by Judicial Member as well as Technical Member separately on individual capacity. Against the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants filed this appeal with delay of 1189 days. It is further stated that she could not file the appeal in time that due to death of her husband, she being lady having no knowledge of court proceedings. She prayed for condone the delay of 1189 days and admit the appeal.

(4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the delay in filing appeal has not been properly explained by showing the sufficient cause, the delay is not required to be condoned and in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, it cannot be considered. Further he submit that the appellant miserably failed to given any plausible and

sufficient reasons to condone such huge delay. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to the dismissed on the ground of delay.

(5) This Court has considered the submissions made. Normally a very lenient view is being taken in the matters of this nature, particularly, where the appeals filed by the appellants against the order passed by the learned Tribunal but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that sufficient cause should be shown and a lenient view may be taken so as to advance the substantial justice.

(6) In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, why the delay has to be condoned mechanically merely because the appellants have no knowledge of court proceedings, therefore, they could not file the appeal in time, is not at all proper explanation.

(7) Decisions reported in the case of Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr1, Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers & contractors Private Ltd2, Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives, Others Vs. Union of India and Others 3 Brahmapal Vs. National Insurance Company4 and State of Odisha and Another Vs. Krupasindhu Nayak and Another5 (8) By following the above judgments read together, sufficient cause has to show for filing this appeal with delay of 1189 days. This Court does not find any sufficient cause pleaded by the appellants for condoning the delay. Apart from this, there is a long delay of 1189 days beyond 90 days period provided for filing an appeal under the Statute, there is no explanation worth

1. AIR 2012 SC 1506

2. 2021 6 SCC 460 3 (2023) 10 SCC 531

4. (2021) 6 SCC 516

5. 2023 SCC Online 1941

the name contained in the condonation of delay application beyond the usual file-pushing is not sufficient, therefore, the appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone the such huge delay.

(9). In such circumstances, obviously the discretion could not have been exercised in favour of the appellants who have not approached this Court with a clean hand, therefore, the application filed by the appellants lacked bonafide.

(10). Having perusal of the above decisions cited (supra), this Court does not find any sufficient cause pleaded by appellants for condoning the delay in question, therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed I.A.No.7463/2022 accordingly. (11). In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal and same is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

(12). Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J

RC............