1 APHC010012442020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 119/2020 Between: 1.ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPT., BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ANANTAPUR. ...APPELLANT AND 1.B NARENDRA, S/O. B. ADIMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O. LEPAKSHI AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2.M D SHABBIR KHAN, S/O. S. MD. KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, APSRTC DRIVER, R/O. D. NO.5/119, 2 RTC COLONY, HINDUPUR. RESPONDENTS (R-2 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN MACMA) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2015 in M.V.O.P.No. 38 of 2 2012 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - Additional District Judge, Hindupur IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 1412 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P.No. 38 of 2012 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum - Additional District Judge, Hindupur, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following Judgment: 1. The present appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 30.10.2015, passed in OP No.38 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hindupur along with an application vide IA No.1 of 2020, seeking to condone the delay of 1412 days in filing the appeal. 2. For proper appreciation of the case of the appellant, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present application are as follows: “It is submitted that there is delay in filing this appeal. The award passed by the lower Court on 30.10.2015 and a copy of application was made on 02.11.2015 and the copy was ready on 30.11.2025 and received on 30.11.2015. Thereafter the counsel appearing in the lower Court forwarded the judgment and decree to the concerned Regional Office and the same was forwarded to the Corporate Office, Hyderabad, due to over sight the bundle was misplaced at the time of bifurcation of APSRTC Corporation, while shifting office files from Hyderabad to Vijayawada head office and the same was not forwarded in time, now at present obtaining necessary sanction and opinion it was decided to file an appeal and the same was forwarded to the Standing Counsel for preferring an appeal. In the above said reasons only the delay was occurred. The delay caused neither willful nor wanton and if this Hon’ble Court has not condone the delay the appellant’s Corporation will suffer irreparable loss and grate hardship.” 4 3. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal could not be filed in time in view of the fact that the order copy was forwarded to the concerned Regional Office and thereafter the same was forwarded to the Corporate Office at Hyderabad. It is further contended that the file was misplaced at the time of bifurcation of APSRTC Corporation, while shifting the office files from Hyderabad to Vijayawada Head Office. It is further contended that after obtaining necessary sanction and opinion, it was decided to file the appeal. 4. In the case on hand, the Tribunal passed order on 30.10.2015. Thereafter, the appellant filed copy application on 02.11.2015 and the copy was made ready on 30.11.2015 and it was received by the appellant on the same day. Further, on perusal of the record it is clear that, the appeal was filed on 08.01.2020. It is needless to mention that the period of limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days, and the appeal ought to have been filed before the said period is exhausted. However, absolutely no explanation is forthcoming from the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking to condone the delay. 5 5. As already noted supra, though the certified copy was received on 30.11.2015, the appeal was filed only on 08.01.2020, and no explanation is forthcoming as to why the appeal could not be filed immediately thereafter. Further, the explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of delay application is vague and does not merit consideration. Apart from the same, the appellant has miserably failed to explain the delay in filing the present appeal. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the aspect of condoning delay, recently in the judgment of Pathapati Subba Reddy and Others v. Special Deputy Collector and Others1 held as follows at paragraph No. 26: “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (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 Limitation 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; 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 6 (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, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” 7. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at paragraph Nos. 6 and 7: “6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 7 communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal/Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously. 7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the 8 expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, (1981) 1 SCC 495: AIR 1981 SC 733).” 8. In Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and another3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at paragraph Nos.31 and 32: “31. It is a well-stated law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasized in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet.” 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093 9 9. In the absence of any such explanation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to condone the inordinate delay of 1412 days in preferring the present appeal. In view of the above referred judgments, the appellant miserably failed to make out a case for condoning the inordinate delay. 10. In view of the same, there is no merit in the present application to condone the inordinate delay of 1412 days in preferring the present appeal and accordingly IA No.1 of 2020 is dismissed. Consequently, the MACMA No.119 of 2020 is also dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 17.10.2025 DR 10 35 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.119 of 2020 Date 17.10.2025 U DR