CM No. 2882/2021 in Mac. App. No. 35/2021 p. 1 Serial No.21 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR. CM No. 2882/2021 in Mac. App. No. 35/2021 Nazir Ahmad Magray & Anr. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Ms. Bushra Zargar, Advocate. V/s National Insurance Co. & Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 19.03.2025. CM No. 2882/2021. 1. Objections have not been filed to the instant application despite availing multiple opportunities granted to the non-applicants. The applicants herein are seeking condonation of delay in preferring appeal against award dated 10th April, 2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Srinagar in claim petition titled as Nazir Ahmad Magrey and Anr. v. National Insurance Company. 2. The contents of the application being relevant herein, as such, are extracted and reproduced hereunder:- (i) That the appellant/applicant has instituted the above titled appeal before the Hon’ble High court and through the medium of this instant application seeks Condonation of delay in filing of appeal for the reasons stated herein below. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM No. 2882/2021 in Mac. App. No. 35/2021 p. 2 (ii) That the Ld. Tribunal passed the award on 10-04.2019 and the applicant came to know about the passing of the award few weeks later through his lawyer. (iii) That the applicant thereafter took some time to consult his lawyer for taking steps for filing the instant appeal but the Hon'ble High court had by then 5 August 2019 step was taken by the central government and state was closed. (iv) That the applicant thereafter engaged a counsel in the month of December 2020 and took steps for filing the appeal but before the appeal could be presented before the Hon'ble High Court there was a Pandemic outbreak due to which lock down was announced and as such the filing of the appeal got delayed. (v) That the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and had occasioned due to the reasons mentioned herein above. (vi) That in case the delay is not condoned the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury as the appeal of the applicant has a strong merit and the applicant is likely to succeed in the matter. 3. Before proceedings to advert to the application in hand, it would be significant to refer to the law in regard to the condonation of delay. 4. It is established that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and although section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, however, an applicant seeking such extension is required to satisfy the Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM No. 2882/2021 in Mac. App. No. 35/2021 p. 3 court that there has been sufficient cause for not preferring the application/appeal within the prescribed period. The Apex Court in case titled as P. K. Ramachadran v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 has at para 6 held as under: <Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.= The Apex Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswam vs. Bhargavi Amma, 2008 (8) SCC 321, at para 13 (iii), besides others, enunciated the following principle qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act: <(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.= Further, the Apex Court in case titled as Office of the Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 2012 (3) SCC 563 has referred to para 29 of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 488, in which following has been observed: <29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM No. 2882/2021 in Mac. App. No. 35/2021 p. 4 fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position and principles of law and reverting back to the case in hand, as emerges from a plain reading of the contents of the application supra, it is manifest that the applicants have not stated that after the passing of the award as to when a counsel was consulted in the matter, so much so, no details have been provided in the application qua, the steps taken for filing of appeal after the engagement of the counsel after the return of normalcy in the then State of J&K after the abrogation of Article 370. The application ex-facie is cryptic and does not detail out any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid position, obtaining in the matter, the application is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, as a consequence whereof, accompanying Mac App. No. 35/2021, shall also stands dismissed. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 19.03.2025 <Abdul Rashid= Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document