[2025:RJ-JP:16042] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3549/2013 1. Kumari Manju d/o Late Shri Babu Lal, aged about 19 years, 2. Kamlesh Late Shri Babu Lal, aged about 17 years, 3. Kumari Sanju d/o Late Shri Babu lal, aged about 16 years, 4. Kumari Anju d/o Late Shri Babu Lal, aged about 14 years, 5. Kumari Anjali d/o Late Shri Babu Lal Meena, aged about 9 years. Through natural guardian of claimants No.1 to 5 maternal uncle Badri Lal Meena son of shri Narain, ranoli, tehsil chaksu, thana chaksu, district jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Appellants Versus 1. Natthi Singh son of Shri Phool Singh, aged about 28 years, resident of salempur khurd, tehsil weir, thana bhusawar, district bharatpur (Vehicle driver Vehicle No. RJ-05-UA-1869 Bolero Car) 2. Jawahar Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of 720, Dayanand Nagar, wad No.15 Dev Khera, Alwar (Rajasthan) 3. Bhim Singh son of Shri Samandar, resident of Bachren, tehsil weir, district bharatpur, rajasthan. (Power of Attorney holder ve- hicle No.RJ-05-UA-1869 Bolero Car) 4. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office- Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Vehicle No. RJ-05-UA-1869 Bolero Car Insurance Policy No.JRO/ 10/823637 valid upto 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2011) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Khushboo Sharma for Mrs. Archana Mantri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/04/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the Claimants- Appellants assailing the award dated 08.11.2012 passed by MACT, [2025:RJ-JP:16042] (2 of 3) [CMA-3549/2013] Jaipur City, Jaipur in MAC No.2412/2011, whereby the claim petition was rejected. 3. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the appellant was represented through counsel before the Court below and now appellant has pleaded a bald statement that he was not having knowledge about the impugned order, dismissing his claim petition, the appellant has not stated the date when he got the knowledge about the proceedings and a very casual pleading has been made to condone the delay of 222 days which is neither bona fide nor a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 4. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16042] (3 of 3) [CMA-3549/2013] 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 has 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. 7. In the above circumstances, this Court does not deem it proper and necessary to condone the inordinate delay of 222 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 Seema/18