The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Committee of Raghunatpur Nafar Academy and others

: Mr. Sandeep Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pritam Bijlani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the non- claimants/appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 12.07.2005 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in Motor Accident Claims No.2629/2001 (667/2000), whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimant/respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the non- claimants/appellants (owner of the vehicle) after an inordinate delay of 713 days. [2025:RJ-JP:27220] (2 of 4) [CMA-3965/2008]

3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause as narrated in the application for condonation of delay, therefore, the application for condonation of delay may kindly be allowed and 713 days in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that no sufficient explanation has been given by the appellants, therefore, the present application cannot be accepted and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the same.

5. Heard on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

6. From bare perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is revealed that the appellant himself remained negligent and he is trying to shift the entire blame on head of the lawyer, therefore, the explanation given by the appellant for condonation of inordinate delay is palpably false and cannot be accepted.

7. Even otherwise, same explanation given by the appellant was disbelieved by the Court while dismissing the appeals S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.3964/2008, 3966/2008 and 2983/2005 filed by the same appellant vide order dated

31.05.2024 and it was held that the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

8. Therefore, in my considered opinion, I find no justifiable reason for condoning the delay of 713 days in filing the miscellaneous appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:27220] (3 of 4) [CMA-3965/2008]

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in " Esha Bhattacharjee v. Committee of Raghunatpur Nafar Academy and others " reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 held as under: "21.8 (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration of a few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted, whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants a strict approach, whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

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 of justice in respect of both parties, and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of a liberal approach"

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 860", has held as under: "That law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims." [2025:RJ-JP:27220] (4 of 4) [CMA-3965/2008]

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash " reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1101, has held as under: in attending It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.

12. In view of the above legal proposition of law and facts stated above, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed for want of any sufficient cause mentioned in the application.

13. Accordingly, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed as being devoid of merits.

14. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has also been dismissed.

15. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-21