[2025:RJ-JP:16087] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3969/2012 Roshan Singh s/o Ram Charan, age - 35 years, r/o rajaheda (Be- hind Shri Giriraj Dharam Mandir) Tehsil and District - Dausa ----Appellant Versus 1. Tahir Hussain s/o Ameen Khan r/o nagori mohalla, PS Dausa, District dausa (Driver) 2. M/s Golden Hifayat Pavement Works Private Limited, through managing director, Mr. N. G. Sinhin, at present r/o shri ashok batwal, behind hotel ratan prabha, somnath choraha, dausa, (Owner) 3. L. Mohan Kumar s/o shri P Laxman Sethi, at present r/o Shri Ashok Batwal, behind hotel ratan prabha, Somnath choraha, dausa (Owner) 4. The New India Assurance Company limited, through branch manager, branch office, near poonam cinema, lalsot road, dausa, district dausa (Insurance Company) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain with Mr. Ramdeo Arya For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/04/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 01.09.2010 passed by MACT, Dausa in Claim Case No.66/2008, whereby learned MACT Judge has been granted com- pensation amounting to Rs.51,500/-. 3. The present appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 664 days and the explanation given by the appellant for the delay, [2025:RJ-JP:16087] (2 of 3) [CMA-3969/2012] stating that they are not aware of the legal procedure and law, is insufficient. It is trite law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Therefore, the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit and does not reflect bona fides. 4. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order impugned was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the alleged ground for condonation of delay appears to be very vague and general in nature which in my considered opinion, cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 664 days. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in [2024] 4 SCR 241 has held as under:- "The law of limitation is based on public pol- icy and is enshrined in the legal maxim "inter- est 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 condo- nation 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 Lim- itation Act. When a party does not adhere to mandatory period of limitation, the Courts can- not condone the delay on the grounds of sym- pathy/compassion. The concept of liberal ap- proach, justice oriented approach and substan- tial 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16087] (3 of 3) [CMA-3969/2012] condonation of delay. Therefore, a right or rem- edy that has not been exercised for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after fixed period of limitation." 6. 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. 7. Thus in my considered opinion, there is no sufficient ground established to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 8. In the above circumstances, this Court does not deem it proper and necessary to condone the inordinate delay of 664 days in filing of the present appeal. 9. In this view of the matter, application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is dismissed. 10. As a result thereof, the appeal also stands dismissed. 11. Any other pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/17