Cannot Rescue Litigant Filing "Cryptic" Delay Condonation Application Without Giving Proper Account Of Dates: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

A bench comprising Justice MA Chowdhary observed,

"Courts cannot come to aid and rescue of litigant where application for condonation does not spell out sufficient cause and the approach of petitioners, in making such application in casual and cryptic manner".

The observations were made while hearing an application in terms of which the petitioner was seeking the indulgence of the Court in condoning the delay of 963 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an award dated passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( District Judge) Samba.

Pressing their prayer for condoning the delay the applicants submitted that their counsel did not inform them about the passing of the impugned award; that they only came to know about the passing of the impugned judgment few days back; that, thereafter they immediately got the certified copy of the judgment and contacted a counsel at Jammu who advised filing of appeal.

Observing that Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its vigor and rigor as prescribed by the statute, Justice Chowdhary stated that one cannot escape the consequences of the provisions of the ‘Law of Limitation’ which provide that for the extension of the period of limitation in a given case, the condition precedent is that the applicants have to satisfy the Court that they have carved out a sufficient cause in seeking the indulgence of the Court for not preferring the appeal or application within the stipulated time.

Pointing out to the fact that the application is based on the ground that their counsel had not informed them about the passing of the Award, the court said there is a huge delay of 963 days in filing the appeal and no satisfactory explanation has come forward on that count except for routine words and phrases.

Frowning over the negligence of the applicants in prosecuting their case within time, the court said the application appears to have been drafted recklessly without giving a proper account of the dates and details of the grounds agitated in it and recourse has been had to the leisure and pleasure in moving the application

"Blaming their counsel by the applicants, in the considered opinion of this court for a huge delay of 963 days, is of no help to condone this reckless delay", the bench concluded while dismissing the plea.

Case Title: Pooja Devi & Ors Vs Tarseem Lal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

Click Here To Read/Download Order