Inordinate delay without cogent explanation or day-to-day justification warrants dismissal of application for condonation of delay.

The Applicants (Smt. Priti Gupta and others) filed a Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of an appeal (M.A.C No. 203/2017) which had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.04.2017

The original appeal arose from an award dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur

The restoration application was filed with a significant delay of 3127 days

The Applicants contended that the delay occurred because their counsel failed to notice the case in the cause list and they only became aware of the dismissal later upon inquiry

Whether the Applicants provided sufficient, cogent, and satisfactory explanations to condone the inordinate delay of 3127 days in filing the restoration application

The Court applied the principles governing the law of limitation, stating it is founded on public policy and requires a litigant to show "sufficient cause" for any inordinate delay

It held that a plausible explanation is mandatory to justify prolonged inaction or negligence, and such delay must be accounted for through cogent evidence or a day-to-day explanation

The Court noted that the delay of 3127 days was extraordinary

Upon reviewing the Applicants’ submissions, the Court found that they offered only "vague and general statements" regarding their lack of knowledge and a "bonafide mistake" by their counsel

The Court observed that the Applicants failed to provide a day-to-day account of the delay or place any material on record to justify their prolonged negligence and inaction

Applying the public policy rationale of limitation law, the Court reasoned that without a plausible and satisfactory explanation, the Applicants could not be permitted to approach the Court after such a long period

Consequently, the MCC seeking restoration of the appeal was also dismissed