- (1.) The petitioner filed appeal - F.A.O. No. 462 of 1978, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 23rd May, 1978, in this Court on 17th October, 1978. The appeal was returned by the Registry, with the endorsement dated 21st October, 1978, that 'the judgment has not been stamped. Returned to be refiled within a week'. The appeal was refiled on Ist November, 1978 and was again returned with the following endorsement, dated 4th November, 1978 :- "Judgment is insufficiently stamped. 2. Judgment has been stamped after limitation. An application for condonation of delay should be filed if so desired. Returned to be refiled within a week." This time, the appeal was refiled on 13th November, 1978, though the accompanying application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dated 10th November, 1978. This time again it was returned with the following endorsement, dated 21st November, 1978 :- "Second paper-book is incomplete. Returned to be refiled within a week." It was refiled after compliance on 28th November, 1978. When this appeal came up for motion hearing, notice of the Misc. application was given to the respondents, as contemplated under Order 41 rule 3-A, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 objected to the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as there was no sufficient cause shown by the petitioners. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the only reason given is that it was due to inadvertence on the part of the clerk of the counsel that the judgment could not be stamped when the appeal was filed, due to rush of work. It is hardly any ground for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this case the whole conduct of the petitioners from the very beginning has been that of negligence and carelessness. In the first instance, the judgment was not stamped at all, when it is well established practice of this Court that the judgments when filed do bear necessary stamps; and secondly, when refiled the judgment was insufficiently stamped. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court Jabar Singh v. Shadi, 1978 80 PunLR 681, in support of his contention. Apart from that, in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361 it has been laid down that in construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time, should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. In the present case we do not find that the petitioners have been able to show any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Hence the application is dismissed.
(2.) As a consequence thereof, F.A.O. Nl. 462 of 1978 and Civil Misc. No. 679/C-II of 1979 are also dismissed. No orders as to costs.;