1 2025:CGHC:40019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 813 of 2025 1 - Bharti Axa General Insurance Comapny Ltd. Authorized Signatory, Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ii Floor, Jeet Towers, Ge Road, P.S. Azad Chowk, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. Presently At - 5th Floor, Skypark, Opp. Banthia Nursing Home, Raja Talab, Raipur- 492001. ... Applicant versus 1 - Sanju Kashyap W/o Lt. Ranjit Kumar Kashyap Aged About 23 Years R/o Ghutrapara, Near Sunrise Higher Secondary School, Post And P.S. Ambikapur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sheela Devi W/o Amarnath Kashyap Aged About 55 Years R/o Ghutrapara, Near Sunrise Higher Secondary School, Post And P.S. Ambikapur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Amarnath S/o Lt. Shyamsundar Kashyap Aged About 61 Years R/o Ghutrapara, Near Sunrise Higher Secondary School, Post And P.S. Ambikapur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ashutosh Patel S/o Ramlochan Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Patelpara, P.S. Chalgali, District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Ghutrapara, Ambikapur, Post And P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chitranjan Prasad Agrawal S/o Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Aged About 40 Years Mayapur, Ward No. 32, Ambikapur, Post P.S. And Tehsil Ambiakpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.08.12 17:21:11 +0530 2 (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb, Advocate For Respondent/s : None (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. This MCC has been preferred by the applicant for restoration of MAC No.136 of 2020 (Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sanju Kashyap and others). 2. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant had filed MAC No.136/2020 which was listed for hearing on 21.01.2020 and on that date four weeks time was granted to the applicant/appellant 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. Since default was not removed within a specified period, therefore, MAC No.136 of 2020 (Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sanju Kashyap and others) was dismissed on 15.07.2020. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that delay of 1238 days in filing the instant appeal is caused because the counsel for the appellant did not inform about the fate of the case to the appellant – Insurance Company. Hence, cause of delay occurred in filing MCC is bonafide, thereby, the delay may be condoned and MCC may be taken up for hearing. 4. Delay in filing the instant appeal is 1238 days and the reason mentioned by the applicant in filing appeal is unforeseen circumstances. No sufficient reason has been mentioned in filing the MCC to condone the huge delay of 1238 days. It is also apt to be noted here that after filing the appeal, the appellant ought not to have oblivious about his case, rather it is duty of the party to enquire about the proceedings of his case from his counsel from time to time, but in the instant case, applicant who is Insurance Company has completely failed to take such steps and after huge delay of 1238 days instant MCC along with application for condonation of delay has been filed. 5. Since, MAC No.136 of 2020 was dismissed on 15.07.2020 in compliance of peremptory order dated 21.01.2020 and instant MCC has been filed after huge delay of 1238 days, 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. 4 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (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.” 7. 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 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 5 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.” 8. In instant case, as has been discussed in preceding paragraphs that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant to condone the huge delay of 1238 days. Eventually, apart from fanciful cause, no cause has been shown, hence, I do not feel inclined to condone inordinate delay of 1238 days in filing of application for restoration of MAC No.136 of 2020. Therefore, I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of restoration application is rejected. Consequently, instant MCC is also dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi