[2025:RJ-JP:2405] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2386/2019 Rafiq S/o Chhutan, Aged About 34 Years,, R/o Daudpur, Tehsil And Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Jakir Khan S/o Shri Chhutan Khan, R/o Plot No. 11, Subhash Nagar, Ward No. 34, Alwar, (Raj.). (Onwer Truck No. Rj-02-G-4342) 2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limted, 8, Katewa Bhawan, Opposite Ganpati Plaza, M.i. Road, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Through Branch Manaer. (Insurer Truck No. Rj-02-G-4342) Through Policy No. 42219810. Validity Period 09-04-2009 To 08-04-2010 ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vimal Yadav for Mr. Rishipal Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/01/2025 1. Instant civil misc. appeal is preferred by appellant claimant aggrieved from and dissatisfied from award dated 19.12.2017 in claim case no. ECC NF 04/2011 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Alwar. 2. Office has pointed out a delay of 446 days and to substantiate reasons of delay, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant while referring the judgment in case of T.C John @ Yohannan (deceased) through LRs. Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:2405] (2 of 7) [CMA-2386/2019] V.J. Antony and Ors. 2024 INSC 1016 and Vishwanath Kapoor Vs. Roshni & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3544/2023) submits that the appellant claimant has sustained permanent disability of 38.8% but the commissioner WCC has determined compensation on lower side. He also submitted that the monthly income of claimant was Rs.8,000/- per month whereas the Commissioner has calculated monthly income as Rs.4,000/- per month. At last, he submitted that the delay in the instant case is beyond control of appellant, hence, he could not file appeal on time. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company and submitted that the delay has to be explained in accordance with principle of law under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellant. 6. 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. 7. 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:- [2025:RJ-JP:2405] (3 of 7) [CMA-2386/2019] 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. 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. 8. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:2405] (4 of 7) [CMA-2386/2019] 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 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:2405] (5 of 7) [CMA-2386/2019] 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 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. 11. In case of Vishwanath Kapoor Vs. Roshni & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the inordinate delay of 761 days has observed that an appropriate explanation to constitute sufficient cause is to be provided but also taken note [2025:RJ-JP:2405] (6 of 7) [CMA-2386/2019] that it is also power of the Court to take note of where would be substantial prejudice that would be caused to the parties and the delay in any event can be condoned. In case of T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) through LRs. Vs. V.J. Antony and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that claimant should not be penalized for counsel’s delay. 12. When we consider the instant case, then the award was passed on 19.12.2017 and misc. appeal was filed on 09.05.2019. In the application for condonation of delay, it was mentioned that the appellant is a poor person and he could not contact his counsel as he was suffering from fever and illness. The applicant could not receive a copy of judgment due to leave of P.O. Herein this application no where it was mentioned that the delay was due to inaction on the part of counsel engaged by the appellant. The reasons as assigned in the application is not supported with any document. If, appellant fell ill, then, there must be some document to support the case of appellant but there is no document on record to support the case of appellant for condonation of delay. In State of Rajasthan, medical facility to citizens is provided free of cost in all Government Hospital and the Government hospital keep record of OPD, therefore, the treatment slip can be procured for a particular period. Similarly, the diagnosis facility is also free of cost and for long illness, if any medical facility is availed, then there may be diagnostic report and same can be filed on record but nothing is available on record to justify ground of illness. The appellant has failed to justify any [2025:RJ-JP:2405] (7 of 7) [CMA-2386/2019] reason in support of his claim, therefore, the application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed. 13. Very recently in case of H. Guru Swamy and Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs 2025 INSC 53 Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering application for condonation of delay has observed that the question of limitation is not merely on technical consideration. The Rules of limitation are based on the principle of public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the sword of damocles hanging over the head of litigant for an indefinite period of time. 14. In view of aforesaid, the judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Otherwise also, while considering application for condonation of delay, the merits of main case cannot be considered. 15. Thus, the appellant is not entitled for condonation of delay. 16. In view of aforesaid, the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. 17. Consequently, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal is also dismissed. 18. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /6