[2025:RJ-JP:15704] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6710/2017 Jagdish S/o Shri Boduram, aged about 33 years, R/o Devipura Chirana, Police Station Udaipurwati Tehsil Nawalgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj. Owner Of The Vehicle No. RJ 23 RA 2743 ----Appellant Versus 1. Chhoturam S/o Shri Khetaram, aged about 50 years, R/o Baral, Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Raj. 2. Shivbhagwan Gurjar S/o Shri Pokharmal Gurjar, R/o Devlanada Chainpura Police Station Dadiya, Tehsil And Distt. Sikar Raj. Driver Of The Vehicle No. RJ 23 RA 2743 3. Shreeram General Assurance Company Limited, E-8 Epip Riico, Sitarm Jaipur Through Its Manager Insurance Company Of The Vehicle No. RJ 23 RA 2743 ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya for Mr. Anil Kumar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/04/2025 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and award dated 01.03.2016, whereby claim petition of the claimant has been allowed and an award of Rs.78,521/- has been passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar. 2. This appeal is delayed by 559 days and the reason for condonation of such delay has been given that appellant could not get knowledge about decision of claim petition and further submitted that his counsel has not informed about the passing of the impugned order. 3. From the perusal of the impugned order it is evident that appellant was represented through counsel and appellant had also [2025:RJ-JP:15704] (2 of 3) [CMA-6710/2017] filed his response to the claim petition and now appellant has pleaded a bald statement that he was not having knowledge about the impugned order. The appellant has further not stated the date when he got the knowledge about the proceedings and a very causal pleading has been put to condone the inordinate delay of 559 days. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) has held as under:- "The law of limitation is based on public policy and is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" meaning there might be an end to litigation, when a right is not exercised or remedy is not availed for a long time, it must ceased to exist and the law of limitation is away to achieve. For every condonation of delay, the appellant has to explain the Court as to what was the sufficient cause, which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within the period of limitation. The equity has no place in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. When a party does not adhere to mandatory period of limitation, the Courts cannot condone the delay on the grounds of sympathy/compassion. The concept of liberal approach, justice oriented approach and substantial justice cannot be employed to override the substantial law of limitation. The Courts have to exercise the discretion systematically and in an informed manner to allow the application of condonation of delay. Therefore, a right or remedy that has not been exercised for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after fixed period of limitation." 5. In the present case, the appellant himself is not pursued the claim petition diligently and remain negligent about the present appeal/ claim petition and the reason for explanation so given is quite vague in nature. 6. Thus in my considered opinion, there is no sufficient ground established to condone the delay in filing the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:15704] (3 of 3) [CMA-6710/2017] 7. In the above circumstances, this Court does not deem it proper and necessary to condone the inordinate delay of 559 days in filing of the present appeal. 8. In this view of the matter, application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is dismissed. 9. As a result thereof, the appeal also stands dismissed. 10. Any other pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /78