High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is the owner of an offending vehicle which was found involved in a motor accident which occurred on 24.08.1998 and in pursuance whereof the claimants had filed Claim Petition No.309/1998. The said claim petition came to be allowed by means of the award dated 20.01.2001, wherein it was noticed that the appellant (the owner of the offending vehicle) did not file any document on record to indicate that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized to drive the said truck, as a consequence, while allowing the claim petition, the award was saddled on the appellant. As far as the driver was concerned, since his legal heirs were not brought on record, accordingly, the claim petition was abated against the respondent No.3. The record reflects that the appellant being aggrieved against the said award dated 20.01.2001 preferred a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition, by means of the order dated 30.01.2013, passed in Writ Petition No.213 (M/S) of 2002 dismissed it and liberty was granted to the petitioner (the appellant herein) to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance subject to the law of limitation. Despite the order dated 30.01.2013, no effort was made and it is now that the appellant has filed the instant appeal whereby, the order dated 20.01.2001 has been assailed. The appeal is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The Court had requested the learned counsel for the appellant to address on the issue of limitation, since, the instant appeal is reported to be barred by 8806 days. Learned counsel for the appellant while attempting to re- conciliate the cause shown in the affidavit submitted that the award before the Tribunal was passed ex-parte, however, upon the commencement of execution proceedings, the appellant had preferred a writ petition, however, it was not known to the appellant when the writ petition came to be dismissed and only when the execution proceedings went ahead, that the appellant become aware of the proceedings and the instant appeal has been filed before this Court along with an application seeking condonation of delay, which should be liberally construed and notice at least be issued to the respondent on the application for condonation of delay. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it will be relevant to notice the manner in which the appellant has tried to explain the delay of about more than 23 years and odd. Para-2 to 12 of the affidavit explaining the delay is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- "2. That the a motor accident claims petition was filed by the one Smt. Hasanna before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Unnao which is registered as a Accident Claim Petition No.309/1998 "Hasanna and 3 others Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Others".

3. That the appellant was opposite party no.2 in the Claim Petition no.309/1998 and she was owner of the Truck no. UP-35-8327.

4. That the learned tribunal had summoned to the appellant and she was appeared before the tribunal and field separate written statement in the claim petition on the behalf of opposite party no. 2.

5. That subsequently the learned Motor accident Claims tribunal has decided the claim petition and order passed that 'claim petition for recovery of Rs.1,37,000/- together with interest 10% per annum from today till the satisfaction of the amount of award is decreed with costs against the respondent no.2 i.e. presently appellant of the appeal wide order dated 20/01/2001.

6. That it is relevant to mention here that the learned tribunal has passed the order dated 20/01/2001 in the absence of counsel of appellant and when the appellant received the notice of execution then she know that an order has passed in her matter then appellant was filed the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. and section 151 C.P.C. but the learned court has been rejected the application filled by the appellant on dated 18/09/2001. The true Photo copy/Typed Copy of application of 9 rule 13 C.P.C. and section 151 C.P.C is being annexed here with as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

7. That after rejection of the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. and section 151 C.P.C. by order dated 18/09/2001, the appellant approached that time's advocate Mr. D.P. Singh and he was suggested for filling the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court Lucknow Bench Lucknow.

8. That by the suggestion of that time's counsel the appellant was ready for the filling of the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and she was field the Writ Petition No. 213/2002 (M/S) 'Smt. Renu Jain Versus District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao and others' and the Hon'ble Court was passed a interim order dated 16/04/2002 that "Meanwhile it is provided that in case the present petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- within one month, from today before the Tribunal, the execution of the award dated 20/01/2001 shall remain stayed, till the next date of listing." The true Photo Copy of order dated 16/04/2002 is being annexed here with as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.

9. That the pursuance of order dated 16/04/2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.50000/- before the concern court and subsequently she has deposited all awarded money before the execution court. The true Photo Copy of document related to deposited money is being annexed here with as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.

10. That when the writ petition was listed for hearing on 30/01/2013 for hearing the counsel had not appeared in the case, ultimately the Court was dismissed the writ petition vides order dated 30/01/2013. The true Photo Copy of order dated 30/01/2013 is being annexed here with as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.

11. That after dismissal of the writ petition in execution proceeding appellant filed the entire necessary document insurance of vehicle, driving license of driver and the Judgment of Kerala High Court Sree Kumar Versus Abdeen 2014 (1) Τ.Α.C. 265 (Ker,), but execution had not consider any thing and passed the arbitrary order.

12. That the appellant was filed the an application 'Ka 3' before the execution court for that the court pleased consider the document filed by the appellant but the leaned court has rejected the application 'Ka-2' on dated 26/06/2024. The true Photo Copy of order dated 26/06/2024 is being annexed here with as Annexure No.5 to this affidavit." Having considered the aforesaid averments made in the aforesaid affidavit and taking note of the decisions of the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that even though the issue of limitation may be liberally constructed, but at the same time, it must be kept in mind that delay should not be condoned as some generosity rather after the period of limitation rights accrue in favour of the other party, therefore, that also needs to be balanced, being liberal should not work injustice on the other party [See: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093]. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no cause sufficiently explained for seeking delay of more than 23 years. There is not a single whisper in the said affidavit that after the writ petition was dismissed in 2013, yet from 2013 till today, there is no explanation offered. The application seeking condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit is misconceived. No ground much less, sufficient cause has been indicated. In the aforesaid given circumstances, where a very causal affidavit has been filed to allegedly explain delay of 23 years and issuing notice to the respondent also will be like flogging a dead horse and to unnecessary call upon the respondent to appear and contest the application for condonation of delay consuming time of the Court, parties and off course expense to be borne by the respondent all is cumbersome. Accordingly, at this stage, without issuing notice, the Court is not satisfied with the alleged sufficient cause shown in the affidavit. The application is rejected so also the appeal on a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Civil Misc. Application No.IA/1/2025 seeking condonation of delay and so the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is the owner of an offending vehicle which was found involved in a motor accident which occurred on 24.08.1998 and in pursuance whereof the claimants had filed Claim Petition No.309/1998. The said claim petition came to be allowed by means of the award dated 20.01.2001, wherein it was noticed that the appellant (the owner of the offending vehicle) did not file any document on record to indicate that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized to drive the said truck, as a consequence, while allowing the claim petition, the award was saddled on the appellant. As far as the driver was concerned, since his legal heirs were not brought on record, accordingly, the claim petition was abated against the respondent No.3. The record reflects that the appellant being aggrieved against the said award dated 20.01.2001 preferred a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition, by means of the order dated 30.01.2013, passed in Writ Petition No.213 (M/S) of 2002 dismissed it and liberty was granted to the petitioner (the appellant herein) to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance subject to the law of limitation. Despite the order dated 30.01.2013, no effort was made and it is now that the appellant has filed the instant appeal whereby, the order dated 20.01.2001 has been assailed. The appeal is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The Court had requested the learned counsel for the appellant to address on the issue of limitation, since, the instant appeal is reported to be barred by 8806 days. Learned counsel for the appellant while attempting to re- conciliate the cause shown in the affidavit submitted that the award before the Tribunal was passed ex-parte, however, upon the commencement of execution proceedings, the appellant had preferred a writ petition, however, it was not known to the appellant when the writ petition came to be dismissed and only when the execution proceedings went ahead, that the appellant become aware of the proceedings and the instant appeal has been filed before this Court along with an application seeking condonation of delay, which should be liberally construed and notice at least be issued to the respondent on the application for condonation of delay. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it will be relevant to notice the manner in which the appellant has tried to explain the delay of about more than 23 years and odd. Para-2 to 12 of the affidavit explaining the delay is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- "2. That the a motor accident claims petition was filed by the one Smt. Hasanna before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Unnao which is registered as a Accident Claim Petition No.309/1998 "Hasanna and 3 others Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Others".

3. That the appellant was opposite party no.2 in the Claim Petition no.309/1998 and she was owner of the Truck no. UP-35-8327.

4. That the learned tribunal had summoned to the appellant and she was appeared before the tribunal and field separate written statement in the claim petition on the behalf of opposite party no. 2.

5. That subsequently the learned Motor accident Claims tribunal has decided the claim petition and order passed that 'claim petition for recovery of Rs.1,37,000/- together with interest 10% per annum from today till the satisfaction of the amount of award is decreed with costs against the respondent no.2 i.e. presently appellant of the appeal wide order dated 20/01/2001.

6. That it is relevant to mention here that the learned tribunal has passed the order dated 20/01/2001 in the absence of counsel of appellant and when the appellant received the notice of execution then she know that an order has passed in her matter then appellant was filed the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. and section 151 C.P.C. but the learned court has been rejected the application filled by the appellant on dated 18/09/2001. The true Photo copy/Typed Copy of application of 9 rule 13 C.P.C. and section 151 C.P.C is being annexed here with as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

7. That after rejection of the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. and section 151 C.P.C. by order dated 18/09/2001, the appellant approached that time's advocate Mr. D.P. Singh and he was suggested for filling the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court Lucknow Bench Lucknow.

8. That by the suggestion of that time's counsel the appellant was ready for the filling of the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and she was field the Writ Petition No. 213/2002 (M/S) 'Smt. Renu Jain Versus District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao and others' and the Hon'ble Court was passed a interim order dated 16/04/2002 that "Meanwhile it is provided that in case the present petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- within one month, from today before the Tribunal, the execution of the award dated 20/01/2001 shall remain stayed, till the next date of listing." The true Photo Copy of order dated 16/04/2002 is being annexed here with as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.

9. That the pursuance of order dated 16/04/2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.50000/- before the concern court and subsequently she has deposited all awarded money before the execution court. The true Photo Copy of document related to deposited money is being annexed here with as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.

10. That when the writ petition was listed for hearing on 30/01/2013 for hearing the counsel had not appeared in the case, ultimately the Court was dismissed the writ petition vides order dated 30/01/2013. The true Photo Copy of order dated 30/01/2013 is being annexed here with as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.

11. That after dismissal of the writ petition in execution proceeding appellant filed the entire necessary document insurance of vehicle, driving license of driver and the Judgment of Kerala High Court Sree Kumar Versus Abdeen 2014 (1) Τ.Α.C. 265 (Ker,), but execution had not consider any thing and passed the arbitrary order.

12. That the appellant was filed the an application 'Ka 3' before the execution court for that the court pleased consider the document filed by the appellant but the leaned court has rejected the application 'Ka-2' on dated 26/06/2024. The true Photo Copy of order dated 26/06/2024 is being annexed here with as Annexure No.5 to this affidavit." Having considered the aforesaid averments made in the aforesaid affidavit and taking note of the decisions of the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that even though the issue of limitation may be liberally constructed, but at the same time, it must be kept in mind that delay should not be condoned as some generosity rather after the period of limitation rights accrue in favour of the other party, therefore, that also needs to be balanced, being liberal should not work injustice on the other party [See: Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093]. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no cause sufficiently explained for seeking delay of more than 23 years. There is not a single whisper in the said affidavit that after the writ petition was dismissed in 2013, yet from 2013 till today, there is no explanation offered. The application seeking condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit is misconceived. No ground much less, sufficient cause has been indicated. In the aforesaid given circumstances, where a very causal affidavit has been filed to allegedly explain delay of 23 years and issuing notice to the respondent also will be like flogging a dead horse and to unnecessary call upon the respondent to appear and contest the application for condonation of delay consuming time of the Court, parties and off course expense to be borne by the respondent all is cumbersome. Accordingly, at this stage, without issuing notice, the Court is not satisfied with the alleged sufficient cause shown in the affidavit. The application is rejected so also the appeal on a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Civil Misc. Application No.IA/1/2025 seeking condonation of delay and so the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench