HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 854/2023 1. Smt. Draupadi Devi W/o Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shri Anil Singh Son Of Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Shri Jaman Singh Son Of Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Kumari Chetna Kanwar D/o Late Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. E-63, Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus 1. Ratilal Meena Son Of Shri Mahadev Prasad Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dhani Sailanya, Tan Chhapawas, Police Station Nangalrajawatan District Dausa. (Driver Registered Vehicle Jeep Tempo Texi No. Rj-14-1P-4525) 2. Kailashi Devi W/o Shri Ramkaran Meena, R/o Plot No. 42 Krishna Nagar, Gopalpura Bye-Pass, Jaipur. (Owner Registered Vehicle Jeep Tempo Texi No. Rj-14-1P-4525) 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Regional Office At 10, Narain Singh Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Insurer Company Vehicle Jeep Tempo No. Rj 14 1P4525) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sarita Choudhary for Mr. Rahmat Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 21/01/2025 (2 of 8) [CMA-854/2023] 1. Instant Civil Misc. Appeal is preferred by appellants- claimants aggrieved from award dated 20.08.2019 in claim case No. 125/2017 (1848/2004) passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 16, (MACT), Jaipur wherein a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor vehicle Act filed by present appellants- claimants was dismissed. 2. The Office has pointed out a delay of 1216 days in filing the instant civil misc. appeal and to substantiate the reasons of delay an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds has submitted that appellant No.2- Anil Singh and appellant No.4 Kumari Chetna Kanwar were suffering from serious illness and documents relating to their treatment were filed for consideration by Hon’ble Court. She further submitted that the documents submitted in support of application clearly indicate that one of the claimant Kisturi Devi who was suffering from serious illness has expired on 15.02.2023 and the entire family was engaged in taking care of ailing family members. She further submitted that from March, 2020 till February, 2022 Covid-19 has also impacted the movements of everyone including appellants. At last, she submitted that if delay is not condoned then the appellant will suffer adversely or their right to ventilate will extinguish. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for Insurance Company and he submitted that the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record has concluded that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and after a detailed analysis has dismissed the claim petition of appellants. (3 of 8) [CMA-854/2023] 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. A perusal of order passed by learned Tribunal indicate that the claim petition was dismissed as the claimants have failed to establish involvement of vehicle against whom the claim petition was filed. Herein, there is a delay of 1216 days and same is a substantial delay. 7. After dismissal of claim petition on 20.08.2019, the civil misc. appeal is preferred on 18.03.2023. The appellants are required to explain delay from August 2019 to 23.03.2020 and from March, 2022. A period from 23.03.2020 to February, 2022 is exempted for the purpose of operation of law of limitation but prior to Covid-19 and after the over of Covid-19, appellants are required to explain the reasons of delay. 8. Section 5 of the Limitation Act prescribes that any appeal or revision or an application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the petitioner satisfies the Court on sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or revision or making an application within prescribed period. 9. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to allow application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (4 of 8) [CMA-854/2023] 3. "Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 10. In case of Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 685, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 5 of Limitation Act has referred the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215 and observed that the explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown (5 of 8) [CMA-854/2023] for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi- benches of Hon’ble Supreme Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay. 11. In the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.: (2014) 13 SCC 291, while referring the judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.: (2013) 12 SCC 649, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court further observed that the Court cannot condone the delay, if it is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, and a delay cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds. 12. Very recently condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Subba Reddy (died) by LRs. And Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 wherein also it was held that unless sufficient cause is shown the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be allowed. The underlying provisions after harmonious construction of provision of law were formulated in following manner:- (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by (6 of 8) [CMA-854/2023] forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the L imitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision. 13. In case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs (Civil Appeal no. 317/2025) reported as 2025 INSC 53 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as (7 of 8) [CMA-854/2023] “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.” 14. Having considered aforesaid, the instant appeal is preferred by all five claimants and during pendency of appeal, appellant No.5 Kisturi Devi has expired on 15.02.2023 and an application to delete her name was already allowed on 24.07.2023. Herein, all 5 claimants were adult and two of them are male claimants. 15. We have gone through the treatment record of Smt. Kisturi Devi, Ms. Chetna Kanwar and Sh. Anil Singh and after considering the entire record, I am of the considered view that this treatment record is not sufficient to draw a conclusion that due to engagement in treatment of two or three ailing family members the appeal could not filed on time. It is necessary for the appellant to show sufficient reasons and the claimants are resident of Jaipur, and High Court is also situated at Jaipur and Tribunal which passed the order is also at Jaipur. Therefore, there is enough time to file a civil misc. appeal but the appellants have failed to file appeal on time, thus, the reasons assigned by the appellants is not sufficient and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed. 16. Thus, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is dismissed along with Civil Misc. Appeal. (8 of 8) [CMA-854/2023] 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /258-S