The Jammu And Kashmir High Court in the case Pooja Devi & Ors Vs Tarseem Lal & Ors observed and has dismissed a ‘cryptic’ delay condonation application for not giving proper account of dates.
The bench comprising of Justice MA Chowdhary in the case observed that the courts cannot come to aid and rescue of litigant where application for condonation does not spell out sufficient cause and the approach of petitioners, wherein making the applications in casual and cryptic
manner.
The court made the said observations while hearing an application in terms of which the petitioner in the plea was seeking the indulgence of the Court in condoning the delay of 963 days wherein the court filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an award dated which is being passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( the District Judge) Samba.
Therefore, while pressing their prayer for condoning the delay the applicants it has been submitted before the court that it has not been informed by the counsel about the passing of the impugned award; that they only came to know about the passing of the impugned judgment few days back and immediately after they got the certified copy of the judgment and has contacted the counsel at Jammu who advised filing of appeal.
The court observed that the that Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its vigor and rigor as it is being prescribed by the statute, the bench headed by Justice Chowdhary stated that one cannot escape the consequences of the provisions of the ‘Law of Limitation’ wherein it is provided 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 wherein seeking the indulgence of the Court for not preferring of the appeal or an application within the stipulated time.
The said court also pointed out the fact that the application is being based on the ground that their counsel had not informed them about the passing of the Award, it has also been stated by the court that there being 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.
The court also blamed the counsels appearing for the applicant that this court is of the considered opinion of this court for a huge delay of 963 days, is of no help to condone this reckless delay. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
