Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chanana Ram vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... on 11 December, 2023
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2023:RJ-JD:43091]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 201/2021
Chanana Ram S/o Poonma Ram, Aged About 62 Years, By caste
Bheel, R/o Ranisar (Sanau), Tehsil Chouhtan, Dis. Barmer
----Appellant
Versus
1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd, Corporate
Office 4Th And 5Th Floor, Iffco Tower Plot No. 3, Sector
20, Gurgaon (Hariyana)
2. Bhishma Kumar S/o Girdhari Lal, R/o Radha Krishna
Mandir, Azad Nagar, Choutan Tehsil Choutan, Dis. Barmer
3. Hanuman Prasad S/o Dhanna Ram, By caste Jat, R/o
Kudla, Tehsil And Dis. Barmer
4. Smt. Tipu W/o Vishna Ram, By caste Jat, R/o Nathaniyo
Ka Bas, Kudla Tehsil And Dis. Barmer
5. Smt. Navli W/o Rupa Ram, By caste Jat, R/o Nathaniyo
Ka Bas, Kudla Tehsil And Dis. Barmer
6. Rupa Ram S/o Baga Ram, By caste Jat, R/o Nathaniyo Ka
Bas, Kudla Tehsil And Dis. Barmer
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anamika Baghmar for
Mr. Vishal Singhal
Mr. M.L. Khatri
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
11/12/2023
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he
has handed over the brief/file to the appellant at his request and
has no further instructions in the matter. He therefore pleads, 'No
Instructions'.
[2023:RJ-JD:43091] (2 of 4) [CMA-201/2021]
It is relevant to note that on last two occasions i.e.
12.09.2023 and 30.10.2023, none appeared on behalf of the
appellant. Today counsel has pleaded 'No Instructions'.
2. The present is an appeal by owner of the vehicle against the
award/judgment dated 27.03.2015 whereby the Insurance
Company has been exonerated from the liability and has been
granted the liberty to 'pay and recover'.
3. The appeal is reported to be barred by 2063 days. The
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed
with a submission that the information of the suit having been
decided on 27.03.2015, was not received by the appellant as the
letter sent by his counsel was not received by him.
4. On perusal of the application as preferred on behalf of the
appellant, this Court is not inclined to condone the inordinate
delay of 2063 days in filing the present appeal. The only reason
given for the delay from the date of the judgment/award i.e.
27.03.2015 till 25.02.2020 is that he was not aware of the
judgment/award having been passed against him as the letter
sent by his counsel was not received by him. It cannot be
comprehended that a litigant would not contact his counsel for a
period of more than 5 years.
The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Basawaraj and Ors.
Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 held
as under:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised
to the effect that where a case has been
presented in the court beyond limitation, the
applicant has to explain the court as to what
was the "sufficient cause" which means an
adequate and enough reason which prevented
[2023:RJ-JD:43091] (3 of 4) [CMA-201/2021]
him to approach the court within limitation. In
case a party is found to be negligent, or for
want of bonafide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have not
acted diligently or remained inactive, there
cannot be a justified ground to condone the
delay. No court could be justified in condoning
such an inordinate delay by imposing any
condition whatsoever. The application is to be
decided only within the parameters laid down
by this Court in regard to the condonation of
delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to
prevent a litigant to approach the court on time
condoning the delay without any justification,
putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to
passing an order in violation of the statutory
provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter
disregard to the legislature."
The Delhi High Court in the case of Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. (Regular First Appeal
No.497/2017) decided on 18.05.2017, held as under:
"11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant
of his rights and is also expected to be
equally vigilant about the judicial
proceedings pending in the court of law
against him or initiated at his instance.
The litigant cannot be permitted to cast
the entire blame on the Advocate. It
appears that the blame is being attributed on
the Advocate with a view to get the delay
condoned and avoid the decree. After filing
the civil suit or written statement, the
litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up
from a deep slumber after passing a long
time as if the court is storage of the suits
filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the
entire blame upon the advocate and trying to
make it out as if they were totally unaware of
the nature or significance of the proceedings is
a theory put forth by the
appellant/applicant/defendant company, which
cannot be accepted and ought not to have been
accepted."
[2023:RJ-JD:43091] (4 of 4) [CMA-201/2021]
5. In view of the above ratio and in view of the fact that no
plausible ground for the inordinate delay of 2063 days has been
explained by the appellant, this Court does not find any ground to
condone the same. The application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is therefore, rejected.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in non-prosecution as
well as being time barred.
6. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
9-Sachin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
