Zaru Shamji vs Meenu And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5554 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059926




CM-7489-CII-2023
CM-7490-CII-2023 in/and                                     2023:PHHC:059926
FAO-1951-2023
                                       1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

(110-A)                               CM-7489-CII-2023
                                      CM-7490-CII-2023 in/and
                                      FAO-1951-2023
                                      Date of Decision : 27.04.2023
Zaru Shamji
                                                                    ...Appellant

                                Versus

Meenu and others

                                                                ...Respondents

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:     Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
             ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

CM No. 7489-CII-2023

The present application has been filed for seeking condonation

of delay of 1398 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Certain facts have been mentioned in the application to give

justification as to why the accompanying appeal could not be filed within

the limitation prescribed. From the Award, it is clear that though initially

the applicant-appellant appeared before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal but thereafter, absented, due to which, he was proceeded ex-parte.

Once, even before the Tribunal, the applicant-appellant was proceeded ex-

parte, this shows that the applicant-appellant had lost interest in pursuing

the remedy since long.

Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 titled as Office of the Chief

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059926

CM-7489-CII-2023 CM-7490-CII-2023 in/and 2023:PHHC:059926 FAO-1951-2023

Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and

another, decided on 24.02.2012, each day's delay is to be explained so as to

seek the condonation of delay after proving the fact that the delay was not

intentional and was beyond the control of the appellant. The relevant

paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment are as under :-

"13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red- tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

14. In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed."

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fact has

been brought on record to show that delay of 1398 days is due to some valid

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059926

CM-7489-CII-2023 CM-7490-CII-2023 in/and 2023:PHHC:059926 FAO-1951-2023

reasons, which were beyond the control of the applicant-appellant. As per

the settled principle of law, the rights, which have been crystallized in

favour of the respondents, cannot be taken away merely on the application

filed seeking condonation of delay and that too without justifiable cause

pleaded. Such crystallized rights can only be taken away, if some valid

justification comes forward so as to explain that delay occurred due to the

reasons, which were beyond the control of the appellant, due to which the

appeal could not be filed within limitation. In the present case, no valid

justification has been given for the delay. Rather, the applicant-appellant

even did not pursue the case before the Tribunal and was proceeded against

ex-parte.

Keeping in view the above, as the claim for condonation of

delay of 1398 days is not supported by any valid justifiable fact and keeping

in view the settled principle of law settled in Chief Post Master General's

case (supra), no ground is made out for condoning such a huge delay in the

absence of any valid justification.

The application is dismissed.

FAO-1951-2023 and CM-7490-CII-2023

As the application seeking condonation of delay has been

dismissed, consequently, the present appeal filed cannot be considered on

merit and the same is also dismissed along with CM-7490-CII-2023.

April 27, 2023                     (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan                                        JUDGE
            Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

             Whether reportable                : Yes/No


                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059926

                                      3 of 3