(1.) Appellants have filed this application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 493 days in filing the M.F.A.(RCT). Respondent filed a counter affidavit objecting condonation of delay. When the application was taken up for hearing, the learned Central Government Counsel Adv.Rohith R.Kartha raised an objection that the power to condone delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is not available to this Court in the case of an appeal filed under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The learned counsel cited some judgments of other High Courts in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the appellants Adv.Simi S.Ali per contra submitted that the delay can be condoned invoking Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and relied on some other judgments rendered by different High Courts. No pronouncement directly dealing with the legal issue raised by the learned Central Government Counsel rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court or this Court could be noticed. Hence, this Court appointed Adv.K.C.Harish as Amicus Curiae and heard him as also the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively.
(2.) I shall address the arguments after noting the relevant statutory provisions. Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for appeals from every order not being an interlocutory order of the Claims Tribunal to the High Court. The provision is extracted hereunder: -
(3.) It is pertinent to remark that no power to condone delay in filing the appeal is expressly provided under Sec. 23 or any other provisions of the Act.