(Prayer: C.M.P.No.20179 of 2017 is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to condone the delay of 740 days in filing the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the awarded dated 10.03.2014 in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gingee.C.M.A.SR.No.43868 of 2016 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gingee, Thiruvannamalai District, made in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2005 dated 10.03.2014 in so far as against the award on this appellant.)1. The civil miscellaneous petition is filed to condone the delay of 740 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2005 dated 10.03.2014.2. The condone delay petition is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal is to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 173(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, 90 days time limit is contemplated. The Proviso Clause to Section 173(1) stipulates that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, there must be sufficient cause for delay and the reasons stated for such an enormous delay in filing the appeal is also to be explained and must be an acceptable one.3. Law of Limitation as contemplated under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is the law. The condonation of delay is an exception under the proviso clause. Thus, the condonation of delay can never be a mechanical affair and the High Court cannot condone the delay in a routine manner. When the law provides limitation for preferring an appeal and the proviso clause as contemplates the power of discretion to the Court to condone the delay, then such discretionary powers are to be exercised judiciously and by recording reasons. It is not as if, the High Courts can condone the delay in a routine manner, so as to dilute the law of limitation as contemplated under the said Act. Thus, in all cases, where there is an enormous delay in filing an appeal, the Courts are bound to ascertain the reasons and its genuinity and the acceptability of such reasons. The reasons must be candid and the Courts are bound to record such reasons, while condoning long delay.4. As far as the lis on hand is concerned, there is a delay of 740 days. Affidavits filed with incorrect facts or cooked up facts can never be encouraged by the High Courts. Enormous delay can be condoned, if the reasons furnished are candid and convincing or not otherwise. The recent practice before the High Court is that the litigants are filing condone delay applications with flimsy reasons with an expectation that the High Court will condone long delay without ascertaining any reasons. Such attitude or practice can never be encouraged by the Courts. Law of Limitation is substantiative. Rule is to file an appeal within the time limit. The condonation of delay is an exception. The power of discretion is to be exercised discreetly and judiciously. The reasons must be recorded by the Courts, while condoning the long delay. Courts are not supposed to condone the delay based on certain flimsy and unexplained reasons. Such a practice would defeat the law of limitation, which is certainly impermissible. Thus, the Courts must be cautious and discretionary power is to be exercised judiciously and reasons must be recorded, while condoning enormous delay.5. In the present case, the only reason stated is that the Trial Court counsel though obtained the certified copies of the judgment and decree in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in both the case has misplaced the same and could not be traceable. On enquiry, the Junior counsel of the trial Court informed that the order copies are not made ready as if the original case papers were mixed up with some other case bundles.6. Such reasons are cooked up reasons and not substantiated. Even if such reasons are to be stated, the same is to be substantiated with some proof, failing which, the condonation of delay cannot be ordered with reference to the long delay.7. Enormous delay cannot be condoned by the Courts in a routine manner. In all such delay, the reasons must be candid, enabling this Court to exercise the power of discretion under the Proviso Clause to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the absence of any such convincing reasons, the Courts would not condone the huge delay in a routine manner, which would defeat the very purpose of law of limitation as contemplated under the statute. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned.8. Power of discretion and the exception clauses are to be exercised properly and in order to mitigate c
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ertain circumstances arising on account of the certain events or incidents, which must be an acceptable one. Contrarily, certain reasons, which are flimsy and routine, cannot be a ground to condone the huge delay.9. In the present case, the petitioner has not established any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the delay of 740 days and therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay and consequently, C.M.P.No.20179 of 2017 stands dismissed and C.M.A.SR.No.43868 of 2016 is rejected at the SR Stage itself. No costs.