In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji AIR

Judgment

1. Madan Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh, R/o Dhaka Ki Dhani, Sabalpur, District Sikar (Raj.) (Driver Of The Vehicle No. Rj23-Ga-8301)

Mulchand Saini S/o Shri Kesardev Saini, R/o Ward No. 18, Mehnato Ki Kothi, Kanwarpura Road, District Sikar, (Registered Owner Of The Vehicle No. Rj23-Ga-8301)

3. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Head Office Sundaram Towers, 45 And 46, Whites Road, Chennai 600002 Through General Manager, (Policy No. Vgt0034994000100 Valid From 30.12.2014 Till

29.12.2015) (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj23- Ga-8301) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Udit Kirori through VC with Mr. Ajay Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 04/02/2025 Order

1. Instant civil misc. appeal is preferred by appellant-claimant dissatisfied from award dated 14.12.2023 in Claim Case No. 56/2018 (276/2015) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, (MACT), Jaipur District, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:5277] (2 of 6) [CMA-122/2025]

2. Office has pointed out a delay of 287 and to substantiate the reasons of delay, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed.

3. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation of ₹5,000/- and same is not sufficient on any count. He also submitted that delay was well explained by claimant as claimant was sole breadearner of his family. He further submitted that delay was beyond his control and same be considered with liberal approach.

4. The claimant-appellant has filed a claim petition for injuries due to accident on 30.12.2014. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹5,000/- to present appellant and dissatisfied from compensation of ₹5,000/- instant civil misc. appeal is preferred.

5. A perusal of Para 47 of impugned award clearly indicate that no material including x-ray report or any other voucher (expenditure bill) is filed on record. After considering injury report Ex.18, the Tribunal has awarded ₹5,000/- as compensation. Now dissatisfied claimant has filed instant civil misc. appeal to enhance compensation. We have perused the grounds raised in application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and also considered the submission of learned counsel for appellant, on admission.

6. Herein this case, the claimant has failed to submit any evidence before the Tribunal, to justify award of any compensation. There is no ground to file appeal for enhancement. [2025:RJ-JP:5277] (3 of 6) [CMA-122/2025]

7. The reasons assigned in application are not sufficient and no supporting document is filed on record. The age of present appellant is 48 years and he is quite mature, therefore, the grounds mentioned in application for condonation of delay is not sufficient for condoning of delay of 287 days in an appeal like this.

8. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to allow application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. [2025:RJ-JP:5277] (4 of 6) [CMA-122/2025]

9. In case of Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 685, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 5 of Limitation Act has referred the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215 and observed that the explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi- benches of Hon’ble Supreme Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay.

10. In the case of Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.: (2014) 13 SCC 291, while referring the judgment of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.: (2013) 12 SCC 649, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion [2025:RJ-JP:5277] (5 of 6) [CMA-122/2025] by the Court for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court further observed that the Court cannot condone the delay, if it is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, and a delay cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds.

11. Very recently, condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Subba Reddy (died) by LRs. And Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 wherein also it was held that unless sufficient cause is shown the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be allowed. The underlying provisions after harmonious construction of provision of law were formulated in following manner:- (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 L imitation 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; liberal (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though justice-oriented approach, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:5277] (6 of 6) [CMA-122/2025] 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, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.

12. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant-claimant has failed to show sufficient grounds for condonation of delay, therefore, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and on merits civil misc. appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

13. As a result, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and consequently civil misc. appeal are hereby dismissed on merits as well. GAURAV /15 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J