MANOJ DEVI Vs. PARAMJOT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for applicant-appellant and perused the record.

(2.) This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed with a delay of one year and 171 days. The only explanation given in affidavit accompanying delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") is that counsel for appellants appearing in lower Court did not inform appellants about the case but it was the responsibility of applicants-appellants also to have a continuous watch and pairavi of matter. The explanation furnished is wholly perfunctory and untrustworthy.

(3.) The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.