While condoning the delay of 3558 days in filing a case seeking motor accident compensation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that a litigant ought not to be penalized for the fault, negligence or inaction of his counsel. The High Court took note of the fact that the applicants were poor and illiterate who were dependent upon their counsel for pursuing the matter before the Court.

The High Court was considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

The Single Bench of Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi held, “Having considered the reasons mentioned in the application, which is well supported by an affidavit and further considering the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court that a litigant ought not to be penalized for the fault, negligence or inaction of his counsel, and in order to advance substantial justice, this Court finds sufficient cause for condoning the delay.”

Advocate Palash Agrawal represented the Applicant.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the applicants was that the case was filed by them seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case was listed on June 30, 2016, when two weeks’ time was granted to remove the default vide peremptory order. However, the default could not be removed within the stipulated period and, consequently, the case was dismissed in compliance with the said peremptory order. It was further submitted that the applicants are poor and illiterate persons.The applicants claimed that they had engaged counsel through the advocates representing them before the lower Court, but the counsel representing them before the High Court did not inform them about the status of the case.

As per the applicants owing to their lack of education and knowledge of legal procedures and Court formalities, they were entirely dependent upon others for pursuing their case. Due to their financial constraints, illiteracy and the absence of proper legal guidance, the applicants submitted that they could not take timely steps for filing the application.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the applicants are poor and illiterate persons who were dependent upon their counsel for pursuing the matter before the Court. The Bench further noted that the explanation furnished by them indicated that they remained unaware of the dismissal of the case, and they came to know about the same only when they contacted another counsel.

“There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or actuated by mala fides”, it added.

The Bench thus condoned the delay of 3558 days in filing the case. “The Registry is directed to restore MAC No.823/2016 {Smt. Lalmuni Yadav and Ors. vs. Punnu Lal Upadhyay and Ors.} in its original number”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Smt. Lalmuni Yadav v. Punnulal Upadhyay (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:26087)

Click here to read/download Order


Chhattisgarh High CourtJustice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.