- (1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed after expiry period of limitation with delay of 362 days. Only explanation given in affidavit accompanying to delay condonation application as there was a financial crisis and appellant is going under treatment. However, we find that affidavit has been filed by Ankit son of the appellant and treatment is in respect to appellant herself and not a person who has filed affidavit, therefore, explanation is uncreditworthy and unsatisfactory.
(2.) 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.
(3.) In P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, 1998 AIR(SC) 2276 the Court said: "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.";