Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Parvati vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 4 March, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5721
1 MCC-3002-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 3002 of 2023
SMT. PARVATI AND OTHERS
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Romil Malpani, learned Advocate alongwith Shri Manoj Malviya,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No. 9360/2023, an application for condonation of delay
of 3252 days in preferring this petition.
2. This Miscellaneous Civil Case under Section XLI Rule 19 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
"CPC"), has been filed for restoration of M.A. No. 2288/2013 which has
been dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2015 in default of non-payment of
process fee. However, this petition has been preferred after a delay of 3252
days.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners
preferred an appeal against the award dated 05.08.2013 passed in Claim Case
No. 104/2012 passed by learned Vth Additional Member, MACT, District
Indore whereby, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on
lower side, hence, for enhancement of the same, appeal was filed as M.A.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5721
2 MCC-3002-2023
No. 2288/2013. He has also submitted that said appeal was listed on
03.12.2014 and notice was issued to respondents and one week's time was
granted to pay process fee, failing which appeal shall stand dismissed
without reference to the Court. Thereafter, counsel has misplaced the file,
due to which he could not pay process fee within time and appeal was
dismissed under peremptory order dated 03.01.2015. Hence, looking to
bonafide mistake he prayed for restoration of M.A. No. 2288/20123.
4. To support his contention, he has placed reliance in the judgment of
Poonam Misra and Others Vs. U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. and another,
2023 ACJ 898 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and judgment G. Subramanian
Vs. Vediyappan and another, 2014 ACJ 2269 passed by High Court of
Madras.
5. In order to decide the application seeking condonation of delay, it is
also required to be seen as to whether the petitioner is having good prima-
facie case and if the delay is not condoned, it would suffer irreparable loss. It
is also to be seen whether the petitioner has explained sufficient cause for
condonation of delay in not approaching the Court within the period of
limitation.
6. So far as the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Poonam
Misra (Supra) & G. Subramanian (Supra) is concerned, having gone through
the facts of the aforesaid cases, it is revealed that all these cases are having
different factual matrix. Therefore, no benefit can be afforded to the present
petitioner from aforesaid precedents.
7. On perusal of interlocutory application, it is evidence that there is an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5721
3 MCC-3002-2023
unexplained delay of 3252 days. No sufficient cause has been stated in the
application regarding delay in filing this petition. The expression "sufficient
cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short
'the Act'), Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC is subject matter of consideration
in this petition.
8. It is well established that the test, to decide whether or not a cause is
sufficient, is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the
exercise of due care and diligence. In other words nothing shall be deemed to
be done bone-fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and
diligence. The expression sufficient cause has necessarily to be a cause
which is beyond the control of the party seeking condonation of delay. The
existence of sufficient cause being a condition precedent for exercise of
discretion of condonation of delay by the Court, in the absence of such
sufficient cause being shown, the delay in preferring the appeal cannot be
condoned.
9. In the present case, the delay of 3252 days has not been properly
explained neither in the interlocutory application nor in the affidavit.
Therefore, in absence of sufficient cause for the delay, I.A. No. 9360/2023 is
hereby dismissed.
10. Resultantly, present petition also stands dismissed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
