Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Savitri Bai vs Chhatram Chauhan on 28 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19601
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1979 of 2024
1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Dujeram Aged About 40 Years Resident Of
Quarter No. 54/4 Bankimongra, Secl Colony, Near Pani Tanki, P.S.
Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
2 - Banshilal Yadav S/o Dujeram Aged About 29 Years Resident Of
Quarter No. 54/4 Bankimongra, Secl Colony, Near Pani Tanki, P.S.
Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
3 - Basantlal Yadav S/o Dujeram Aged About 27 Years Resident Of
Quarter No. 54/4 Bankimongra, Secl Colony, Near Pani Tanki, P.S.
Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
4 - Dinesh Yadav S/o Dujeram Aged About 25 Years Resident Of
Quarter No. 54/4 Bankimongra, Secl Colony, Near Pani Tanki, P.S.
Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
5 - Deviprasad Yadav S/o Late Dujeram Aged About 19 Years Resident
Of Quarter No. 54/4 Bankimongra, Secl Colony, Near Pani Tanki, P.S.
Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
2
versus
1 - Chhatram Chauhan S/o Shri Rikhiram Chauhan, Resident Of Village
Jawali, P.S. Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 12
9241)
2 - Kashmir Singh S/o Jogendar Singh, Resident Of Laluram Colony,
Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle
Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 12 9241)
3 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. 13, Meenu
Complex Kosabadi, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of
Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 12 9241)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate
For Respondent(s) :
Honb’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
28/04/2026
1. The appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by
the impugned award dated 22.01.2009 passed by Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District- Korba in Claim
Case No. 128/2007.
2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, an application under Section 5 of the
3Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants
were not aware of the legal proceedings and the remedy of filing
the miscellaneous appeal. It is further submitted that the
appellants remained out of contact with their counsel for a long
period and when they subsequently approached their local
counsel, they were advised to file the present appeal. Thereafter,
after arranging the necessary funds, the appellants preferred the
present appeal. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the
delay of 4917 days in filing the appeal be condoned in the interest
of justice.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides that any appeal or
any application, other than an application under any of the
provisions of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may
be admitted after prescribed period if the appellant or the
applicant satisfies the court that he has sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
6. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ in section 5 must receive a
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and
generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be
condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or
deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party
seeking condonation of the delay.
4
7. The delay in the present case is of 4917 days, which is inordinate
and enormous. The explanation offered by the appellants for such
extraordinary delay is vague, casual and wholly unsatisfactory.
Mere ignorance of law and non-contact with the counsel for a long
period cannot be treated as sufficient cause within the meaning of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellants have failed to
explain the delay day-to-day and no plausible reason has been
assigned as to why they remained inactive for such a prolonged
period.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellants have failed
to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate
delay of 4917 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, I.A. No.
01/2024 being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
9. As a consequence thereof, the miscellaneous appeal also stands
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Madhurima
