Uttarakhand High Court
AO/58/2021 on 5 August, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
AO No.58 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Hybrid Mode)
Mr. Rashid Husain, Advocate for the
appellant.
The order dated 31.03.2021, dismissing the
delay condonation application in default, is
recalled. The appeal from order is heard on the
delay condonation application on its own merits.
The appellant in the present Appeal From
Order, which has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; has put a challenge to
the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, award dated
10.10.2014 as was rendered in MACP No.240 of
2010 (New Case No.946 of 2013) Smt. Bano
Begum and others vs. M/s Sheel Chandra Agro Pvt.
Ltd. & Others.
This appeal has been instituted before this
Court on 17.03.2021. The Registry has reported that
appeal is barred by limitation of 2258 days and after
excluding the limitation provided in pursuance to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is
the delay of 1893 days, has been determined.
Be that as it may.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
cannot be borrowed, for the purposes of giving
latitude of determining the limitation particularly in
relation to those cases where limitation has expired
even much prior to the period of rendering of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court on 08.03.2021 or
prior to the declaration of lockdown with effect
from March 2020.
During the course of argument while
supporting his delay condonation application, the
counsel for the appellant has admittedly submitted
that he could gather the knowledge of the impugned
award of 10.10.2014, only when he was served with
the notices in an execution case, which was initiated
for the enforcement of the award, which he
admittedly contends that it was in 2017, the notice
in Execution Case was received by him the even if
the knowledge is attributed from 2017, then too
Appeal From Order would be time barred.
Later on, in order to further clarify the said
argument about the knowledge being made to the
petitioner in 2017; he further submits that he
received certain documents in relation to the matter
in question under Right to Information Act in 2019,
then to, there is no reason assigned in the delay
condonation application, as to why he sat over the
matter and did not preferred an Appeal From Order,
even after 2019.
Hence, at this belated stage and particularly
on account of the apparent negligence, on part of
the appellant of not preferring an appeal within
limitation and that too when the knowledge of the
impugned award itself was admittedly imparted to
the petitioner in 2017, for the first time, I am of the
view that the appeal is barred by limitation and the
reasons given in the delay condonation application
for seeking condonation of delay, cannot be
permitted. Hence, the delay condonation application
itself is rejected and as a consequence thereto, the
Appeal From Order would also stand dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
05.08.2021
Arti
