Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) I.A. no. 5564 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 554 days in preferring the present appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the application has urged that the appellants have been grossly negligent and no reasonable explanation has been given neither sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of the delay. It is argued that in similar circumstances, the learned Single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Smt. Kujmati Vs. The Union of India in (M.A. no.3108 of 2009) vide judgment dated 06.11.2015, while considering the application for condonation of delay of 319 days under section 5 of the Limitation Act, has held that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to an appeal preferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. It has been observed that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal which was filed beyond the period of 90 days as provided under Section 23 (3) of the Act, therefore, the appeal was held to be barred by limitation. It is submitted that the instant application for condonation of delay is squarely covered by the ratio of the said decision and the appeal is barred by limitation in terms of Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. That the application under Section 23 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is not maintainable, hence, it is fit to be rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/railways has been overruled by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh, High Court in the case of Kapil and Others vs. Union of India and others, 2017 4 TAC 829, wherein it has been held that the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act.;