IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs GEETA AND ORS

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

1 2026:HHC:46801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP No.16857 of 2025 in
CMP(M) No.1219 of 2025
Reserved on: 30.09.2026
Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
Uploaded on 27.10.2026
___________________________________________________
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
....Applicant-appellant
Versus
Geeta and others
…Respondents
___________________________________________________
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
________________________________________________
For applicant/appellant: Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondents No.1 to 8.
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.9 & 10.
________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge
The instant application has been filed by the
applicant/appellant, under Rule 7 of Chapter 6-C of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh (Appellate Side) Rules, 1997, for
refiling the appeal after removal of the objections. It has been
averred in the application that the appeal could not be
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 2026:HHC:46801
registered as the Registry had raised certain objections.
When the matter could not be listed, inquiry was made by the
counsel for the applicant/appellant and it was transpired that
the matter was lying under objections and objections
compliance date was 29.12.2023. The counsel for the
applicant-appellant removed the objections from time to time
when the Registry raised the same and finally the objections
were removed on 14.08.2024 by the clerk of the counsel for
the applicant. Thereafter, the clerk of the counsel had left the
office and the counsel remained under the bona fide
impression that the matter will be listed before the Court on
its turn, but when the same could not be listed, then on
01.07.2025, the present clerk of the counsel inquired about
the status of the aforesaid case and found that the same was
lying under objections. Thereafter, the objections were
removed immediately by the clerk and filed the appeal
without any further delay. However, in the entire process,
the delay of one year, six months and eleven days had
occurred in re-filing the appeal, which was not intentional or
willful, but owing to the above-narrated facts and

3 2026:HHC:46801
circumstances. Therefore, by means of the present
application, it has been prayed that the delay in refiling and
removing the objections within the stipulated time may be
condoned in the interest of justice.
2. In the reply, respondents No.1 to 8 raised
preliminary objection qua maintainability as no affidavit has
been filed in support of the application. On merits, it is
averred that the appeal was intentionally and deliberately not
filed after removal of the objections and the averments made
in the application are totally wrong, false and baseless. It has
further been averred in the reply that no sufficient reasons
and cause have been given for condoning the delay in
refiling the appeal after removing objections. Therefore, it is
prayed that the application may be dismissed.
3. Respondents No.9 and 10 also filed reply to the
instant application, wherein it is averred that the applicant
has failed to disclose any sufficient reasons for condonation
of delay in refiling the appeal. It is also averred that after
receiving the file on 05.12.2023, no explanation has been
given for the delay, hence, the story is nothing but an excuse

4 2026:HHC:46801
to defeat the period of limitation. It has also been averred on
behalf of the replying respondents that the application is not
supported by the affidavit of the counsel verifying the fact
that in fact the file was mixed-up.
4. I have learned counsel for the parties and also
carefully gone through the material available on record.
5. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of one
year, six months and eleven days in refiling the appeal. As
per Rule 8 in Chapter 2 of High Court of Himachal Pradesh
(Scrutiny, Maintenance of Judicial Records, Administrative
and Executive Business) Rules, 1997, the maximum period
for removal of objections is 7 days at a time and 20 days in
aggregate; and in case the objections were not removed
within this maximum period of 20 days, the matter should be
dealt with in accordance with Rule 7 of Chapter 6(c) of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh Appellate Side and Original
Side Rules, 1997.
6. The said Rule states that if the period taken by
the concerned party for removal of objections exceeds the
time limit specified (7 days at that time and 20 days in

5 2026:HHC:46801
aggregate), the Registry shall not accept the papers unless
the delay in removal of such objections is condoned on an
application by the party.
7. As per Chapter-4 of the H.P. High Court Rules
and Orders Appellate Side, the Registrar is delegated with
the power to condone delay in removing objections raised by
the Registry, to the papers presented in the Registry, up to a
period of 4 months in aggregate only; and if the aggregate
delay exceeds four months, application for condonation of
delay must be placed before a Judge of the High Court.
8. In the instant case, the reasons for not refiling the
appeal within the stipulated period is that the objections were
initially removed on 14.08.2024 by the clerk of the counsel
for the applicant and thereafter, the clerk of the counsel had
left the office and the counsel remained under the bona fide
impression that the matter would be listed before the Court
on its turn, but when the same could not be listed, then on
01.07.2025, the present clerk of the counsel inquired about
the status of the aforesaid case and found that the same was
lying under objections. This explanation is nothing but shows

6 2026:HHC:46801
the negligent act on part of applicant, which cannot be
considered a good ground for condonation of delay. It is
clear that applicant has not specifically stated the facts
indicating sufficient cause for not refiling the appeal within
the prescribed period of limitation The applicant would have
to satisfy this Court that it had pursued the matter diligently
and the delay was beyond its control and was unavoidable.
Neither affidavit of the counsel, nor the affidavit of the
applicant/insurance company has been filed in support of the
averments made in the application. Application is devoid of
material particulars. A cryptic application has been filed by
taking a vague plea for condonation of delay in re-filing of the
appeal, which does not contain sufficient cause or reason for
condonation of delay,
9. In the case titled as Brij Mohan vs. Sunita , MAT
Appeal No.21/2009, decided on January 13, 2010 , while
dealing with the condonation of delay in refiling and
discussing the expression "sufficient cause" the High Court
of Delhi has clearly held that the court cannot mechanically
condone the delay in refiling the appeal, if no reasonable

7 2026:HHC:46801
ground is shown at all. In Asha Sharma and others v.
Sanimiya Vanijiya P.Ltd., 2009 SCC Online Del 2692 , it
has been observed that the Rules framed by the High Court
with regard to re-filing, cannot be allowed to be taken so
casually and there will be no sanctity behind the rules if
every delay in re-filing, is to be condoned irrespective of
howsoever unreasonably long and unexplained it be, and
howsoever mandatory be the nature of the documents, non-
filing of which renders the proceedings defective. It has been
observed as under:-
23. It is trite law that Rules of Procedure being
“
hand-mades of justice, a party should not be refused
relief merely because of some mistakes, negligence or
inadvertence. Rules of Procedure are designed to
facilitate justice and further its ends. But, even if we
take a rather liberal approach in this matter, we are
unable to find any good ground for condonation of
delay in filing this appeal. None of the reasons given in
the application is convincing or logical. The impression
we gather is that the appellants deliberately delayed
filing of the appeal so as to prolong the litigation. It
cannot be said that even if the appellants were totally
negligent and careless and have not come forward
with any worthwhile explanation for the delay, the court
ought to condone the delay in re-filing. The Rules
framed by the High Court cannot be allowed to be
taken so casually and there will be no sanctity behind
the rules if every delay in re- filing, is to be condoned
irrespective of howsoever unreasonably long and
unexplained it be, and howsoever mandatory be the
nature of the documents, non-filing of which renders
the Appeal defective. We cannot condone the delay
merely because an application for condonation of

8 2026:HHC:46801
delay has been filed. No court would not like to reject
an appeal as time-barred unless there are strong
reasons, which compel the court to take such a view.
Some indulgence and a liberal view in such matters is
well-accepted but to say that the court has no option in
the matter and must accept the Memorandum of
Appeal irrespective of the nature of the objections and
delay in re- filing, even where there is no reasonable
explanation to justify the delay, would only be travesty
of justice and will be as good as removing the relevant
Rule in High Court Rules and Orders, from the Statute
Book
.
10. From the above discussion, it is apparent that it is
for the applicant to explain the cogent and satisfactory
reasons of delay in re-filing. In the present case, there has
been an inordinate delay of one year, six months and eleven
days in refiling and in my view, the applicant has not been
able to offer any satisfactory explanation with regard to the
same.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present
application, being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Consequently, CMP(M) No.1219 of 2025, alongwith the
main appeal (FAOST/33056/2023), is also dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja )
October 27, 2026 Judge
( V. Himalvi)