[2025:RJ-JP:20218] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3156/2014 1. Raghunath son of Khimaram, aged about 53 years, 2. Smt. Chhoti Devi wife of Shri Raghunath aged 47 years, Both are resident of Dhani Post Barsinghpura, Tehsil Khandela District Sikar(Rajasthan) ----Appellants Versus Union of India through 1. The General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai. 2. The General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gorav Pareek with Mr. Aditya Pareek Sharma for Mr. Satish Khandal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave with Mr. Vishnu Shankar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/05/2025 1. The present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the award dated 09.05.2013 passed by the Member (Judicial) RCT/Jaipur in claim case No.OA-II-143/2007, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants after an inordinate delay of 329 days. 3. Heard on the application for condonation of delay. 4. From the perusal of the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is reflected that the [2025:RJ-JP:20218] (2 of 4) [CMA-3156/2014] claim petition was dismissed on 09.05.2013 on the ground that the deceased does not fall under the category of bonafide passenger and the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. 5. From the bare perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is reflected that the appellants have received the information about passing the award on 20.10.2013, but still appeal has not been presented within 90 days from 20.10.2013. No sufficient ground has been pleaded in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Esha Bhattacharjee v. Committee of Raghunatpur Nafar Academy and others" reported in [(2013) 12 SCC 649] held as under: "21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration of a few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted, whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants a strict approach, whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9 (ix) The conduct, behaviour, and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties, and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of a liberal approach" 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 860", has held as under: "That law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his [2025:RJ-JP:20218] (3 of 4) [CMA-3156/2014] rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash" reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1101, has held as under: It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. 9. In view of the above legal proposition of law and facts stated above, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed for want of any sufficient cause mentioned in the application. [2025:RJ-JP:20218] (4 of 4) [CMA-3156/2014] 10. Accordingly, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed as being devoid of merits. 11. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has also been dismissed. 12. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /17