HC: Even if assuming the party had been misled by the counsel, a delay of over 9 years cannot be held to be a reasonable delay

 

High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition seeking setting aside of order dated 21.02.2011 and seeks enhancement of compensation.

Brief Facts:

Appellant had sustained injuries in an accident on 03.10.2006. By order dated 21.02.2011 the claim was allowed and compensation awarded. Appellant seeks enhancement of the awarded amount. Subject appeal has been filed on 02.07.2020 with a delay of 3329 days.

Appellant’s Contention:

The application seeking condonation of delay stated that appellant had approached a counsel for filing an appeal for enhancement. Though in the application it is mentioned that the counsel had deceived the appellant and instead of filing an appeal filed a caveat and kept on informing the appellant that appeal had been filed. Further it was contended that appellant in the year 2015 went to Dubai and kept on enquiring from her counsel about the fate of her appeal and was always informed that the appeal was not listed and was pending. It was contended that now after the death of the earlier counsel, appellant has got to know that her appeal was never filed and accordingly the subject appeal was prepared and filed.

 HC’s Observations and Held:

 

After hearing both the sides Court noticed that the impugned order is dated 21.02.2011 and the subject appeal has been filed on 02.07.2020 with a delay of 3329 days. Court stated that “even if assuming the party had been misled by the counsel, a delay of over 9 years cannot be held to be a reasonable delay. Parties have also to be vigilant in pursuing their rights and remedies and not be permitted to sleep over their rights for several years and thereafter suddenly wake up and file an appeal. The explanation rendered in the application does not constitute a sufficient cause for not filing or pursuing an appeal for over nine years.”

HC dismissed the appeal on the ground of being barred by limitation.  

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva

 

Case Title: Ritu Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.

Case Details: MAC.APP. 252/2021 & CM APPL. 30154-55/2021

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure