State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs M/s Hillways Constructions Company Private Ltd

S.K. Mishra, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 85 days’ in preferring the appeal. At the threshold we take note of the recently decided case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 460, para 63 whereof is quoted as hereunder:-

“Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches.”

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Moreover, we have also perused the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer P.W.D. It only shows certain dates of movement of the file without raising any sufficient ground to condone the delay in preferring the appeal.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and appellants have failed to explain the delay of 85 days’ in preferring the appeal, hence, the application for condonation of delay no.02 of 2021 is hereby dismissed.

Appeal From Order No. 127 of 2021.

Since, the appeal has been preferred with the delay of 85 days’ and the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed; the appeal against order, to this Court, is not maintainable being barred by the limitation.

Urgent copy of the order be issued to the parties as per rules.