1 2025:CGHC:32462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 683 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Singh S/o Ratneshwar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Geedam Naka Behind Sibaka Hotel Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Sambel Tirki @ Samir S/o Prem Pujari Aged About 32 Years R/o Kotpad Mission Compund Tahsil/ P.S. And Distt. Kotpad Orrisa (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - Smt. Ratna Shukla W/o S.N. Shukla Aged About 54 Years R/o Panara Para Tahsil - Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) 3 - Through Branch Manager The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/s : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. This MCC has been preferred by the applicant for restoration of MA(C) No.1787 of 2019 (Mukesh Singh vs. Sambel Tirki @ Samir and others). RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.07.15 16:33:09 +0530 2 2. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the aforesaid MAC was filed by the applicant/appellant - Mukesh Singh which was dismissed on 29.01.2021 on the basis of preparatory order dated 16.12.2020. He further submit that aforesaid MAC was listed on 16.12.2020 and on that date the applicant/appellant was directed to remove the default/(s) as pointed out by the Registry of this Court and it was also directed that if it is not removed in the stipulated time, the appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Based on which on 29.01.2021 the MA(C) No.1787 of 2019 (Mukesh Singh vs. Sambel Tirki @ Samir and others) was dismissed. He further submits that because of “Corona” restoration application could not be filed within the specified period, thereafter, instant MCC has been filed. He further submits that cause of delay occurred in filing MCC is bonafide, hence, MCC may be allowed. 4. MA(C) No.1787 of 2019 was dismissed on 29.01.2021 in compliance of peremptory order dated 16.12.2020 and instant MCC has been filed on 09.05.2025. Filing of restoration application after such a huge delay cannot be over-looked particularly when no sufficient cause is shown for filing of application after such a huge delay. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held in paragraphs 21.9(ix) and 21.10(x) as under :- “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 or justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10.(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.” 6. In another case, the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685 in paragraphs 25 and 26 has observed as under : - “25. We may state that even if the term ‘sufficient cause’ has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of ‘reasonableness’ as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing 4 sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.” 7. In instant case, cause of inordinate delay shown by applicant/appellant cannot be said to be bonafide, hence, I do not feel inclined to condone inordinate delay in filing of application for restoration of MA(C) No.1787 of 2019. Therefore, I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of restoration application is rejected. As a result, instant MCC is also dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi