JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. CMP (M) No. 2125 of 2012 1. By way of this application, prayer has been made for condonation of 225 days delay in filing the appeal. Reasons mentioned in the application as to why the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period are mentioned in paras No. 3 to 5 of the application, which are reproduced hereinbelow: “3. The Civil Suit No. 14-S/1 of 2009 titled HPSEB vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another was decided by the learned District Judge, Solan District Solan on 25.06.2011 and the copy whereof was applied on 27.1.2012 which was received on 20.3.2012 by the counsel representing the applicant before the learned trial Court. 4. That as a matter of fact as per the affidavit sworn by the counsel of the applicant, who was representing the applicant-Company before the learned trial Court, the Civil suit was listed for arguments on 26.2.2011, 26.3.2011, 23.4.2011, 28.5.2011 and lastly on 25.6.2011, however, on 25.6.2011 also no arguments were addressed/heard and that on 25.6.2011 the counsel of the applicant was informed by the Reader of the said court that the case has been adjourned without any date and the next date shall be intimated as and when the case shall be taken up for arguments. It was further mentioned that the case was not listed for arguments for considerable time whereafter the counsel made inquiries from the Court in the month of January, 2012 regarding the case and on inquiry got the knowledge that the case has already been decided on 25.6.2011. 5. That the counsel further stated that he had no knowledge about the disposal of the case on 25.6.2011. The copy of the affidavit of the counsel Sh. B.R. Sharma is marked as Annexure A-1. After obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment and decree, the counsel aforesaid, supplied the same alongwith his legal opinion to the Divisional Office of the applicant- Company at Shimla on 21.3.2012. After receipt of such information, the applicant office at Shimla processed the matter and sent the case file with its recommendation for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Court to its Regional Office of the Company at Chandigarh on 28.3.2012 for their approval, who is competent authority in the said regard. After receipt of such information, the applicant office at Shimla processed the matter and sent the case file with its recommendation for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Court to its Regional Office of the Company at Chandigarh on 28.3.2012 for their approval, who is competent authority in the said regard. The Regional Office further processed the matter and sought the legal opinion from Dharam Paul Gupta, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, who vide his opinion dated 6.4.2012 received in the Regional Office of the Company at Chandigarh on 12.4.2012 has opined to assail the judgment of the trial Court before this Hon’ble Court and the competent authority after getting the legal opinion vide its decision dated 13.4.2012 has taken the decision to assail the trial Court judgment before the Hon’ble High Court and accordingly the Divisional Office of the applicant Company at Shimla was duly informed about such decision and the entire case file was sent back to the Divisional Office of the applicant Company at Shimla on 8.6.2012 which was received at Shimla on 11.6.2012 and thus the Divisional Office of the applicant Company, Shimla appointed the present counsel for the purpose of filing the appeal. Thus, the appeal is being filed without any further delay.” 2. As per the averments made in the application, there were serious allegations against the Presiding Officer to the effect that actually on the date, on which the suit was shown to have been decided by the learned Trial Court, the case was fixed for arguments, but no arguments took place on that date and the matter was simply adjourned and the counsel for the applicant was informed by the Reader of the Court that the case stood adjourned without any date and the next date shall be intimated as and when the case shall be taken up for arguments. 3. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation so made in the application, this Court on 16.05.2018 passed the following order: “CMP (M) No. 2125 of 2012 This is an application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Reasons given in para 3 to 5 of the same as to why delay occurred in filing the appeal are reproduced in verbatim herein under:- “3. Reasons given in para 3 to 5 of the same as to why delay occurred in filing the appeal are reproduced in verbatim herein under:- “3. The Civil Suit No. 14-S/1 of 2009 titled HPSEB vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another was decided by the learned District Judge, Solan District Solan on 25.06.2011 and the copy whereof was applied on 27.1.2012 which was received on 20.3.2012 by the counsel representing the applicant before the learned trial Court. 4. That as a matter of fact as per the affidavit sworn by the counsel of the applicant, who was representing the applicant-Company before the learned trial Court, the Civil suit was listed for arguments on 26.2.2011, 26.3.2011, 23.4.2011, 28.5.2011 and lastly on 25.6.2011, however, on 25.6.2011 also no arguments were addressed/heard and that on 25.6.2011 the counsel of the applicant was informed by the Reader of the said court that the case has been adjourned without any date and the next date shall be intimated as and when the case shall be taken up for arguments. It was further mentioned that the case was not listed for arguments for considerable time whereafter the counsel made inquiries from the Court in the month of January, 2012 regarding the case and on inquiry got the knowledge that the case has already been decided on 25.6.2011. 5. That the counsel further stated that he had no knowledge about the disposal of the case on 25.6.2011. The copy of the affidavit of the counsel Sh. B.R. Sharma is marked as Annexure A-1. After obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment and decree, the counsel aforesaid, supplied the same alongwith his legal opinion to the Divisional Office of the applicant-Company at Shimla on 21.3.2012. After receipt of such information, the applicant office at Shimla processed the matter and sent the case file with its recommendation for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Court to its Regional Office of the Company at Chandigarh on 28.3.2012 for their approval, who is competent authority in the said regard. After receipt of such information, the applicant office at Shimla processed the matter and sent the case file with its recommendation for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Court to its Regional Office of the Company at Chandigarh on 28.3.2012 for their approval, who is competent authority in the said regard. The Regional Office further processed the matter and sought the legal opinion from Dharam Paul Gupta, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, who vide his opinion dated 6.4.2012 received in the Regional Office of the Company at Chandigarh on 12.4.2012 has opined to assail the judgment of the trial Court before this Hon’ble Court and the competent authority after getting the legal opinion vide its decision dated 13.4.2012 has taken the decision to assail the trial Court judgment before the Hon’ble High Court and accordingly the Divisional Office of the applicant Company at Shimla was duly informed about such decision and the entire case file was sent back to the Divisional Office of the applicant Company at Shimla on 8.6.2012 which was received at Shimla on 11.6.2012 and thus the Divisional Office of the applicant Company, Shimla appointed the present counsel for the purpose of filing the appeal. Thus, the appeal is being filed without any further delay.” In support of the averments so made in the application, alongwithit Annexure A-1 stands appended, which is an affidavit sworn in by one Shri Braham Raj Shama, who as per the affidavit, was the learned Counsel representing the present applicant before the learned Civil Court. A perusal of the averments made in the application as also the affidavit referred to above, demonstrates that there are serious allegations levelled therein with regard to mode and manner in which the Court had conducted itself. At this stage, this Court is not commenting as to whether allegations levelled in the application are correct or not but if the same are correct, remedial measures have to be taken in this regard by the Institution. However, if the averments so made in the application and the contents of the affidavit are incorrect, then appropriate action has to be initiated against the officer who has sworn the affidavit, on the basis of which, application has been filed, as also learned Counsel who has filed the affidavit. However, if the averments so made in the application and the contents of the affidavit are incorrect, then appropriate action has to be initiated against the officer who has sworn the affidavit, on the basis of which, application has been filed, as also learned Counsel who has filed the affidavit. Accordingly, before any further order is passed, Registrar General is directed to hold inquiry in the matter and submit his report to this effect within a period of two weeks, as to whether averments contained in para 3 and 4 are correct or not. List on 13.6.2018.” 4. Pursuant to the receipt of the inquiry report so submitted by the Registrar General of this Court, dated 08.06.2018, the case was listed on 20.06.2018, on which date, the following order was passed: “Pursuant to order dated 16.5.2018, Inquiry Report stands filed by the Registrar General, dated 8.6.2018. Before this Court passes any further order, in the interest of justice, it is directed that a copy of Inquiry Report be handed over to Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, with a further direction that Counsel Shri B.R. Sharma, shall file his personal affidavit within a period of one week in response to the Inquiry Report. List on 27.6.2018, on which date, Sh. B.R. Sharma, Advocate shall personally remain present in the Court. Attested copy of Inquiry report be supplied to Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of the day.” 5. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 27th June, 2018, Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned counsel, who was representing the present applicant before the learned Trial Court filed an affidavit, wherein he mentioned that the averments which were so made in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in reference to him were in fact incorrect. He also tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology in the Court, which was accepted, as is borne out from the order, dated 27.06.2018, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “Pursuant to order dated 20.06.2018, Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate, who was representing the appellant before the learned Tribunal is present in person. On his instructions, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Counsel has assisted the Court. Sh. B.R. Sharma, Advocate has filed an affidavit which is ordered to be taken on record. Besides this, he has tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology in the Court. B.R. Sharma, Advocate, who was representing the appellant before the learned Tribunal is present in person. On his instructions, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Counsel has assisted the Court. Sh. B.R. Sharma, Advocate has filed an affidavit which is ordered to be taken on record. Besides this, he has tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology in the Court. He further submits that he withdraws the averments which he had so made in the affidavit appended with the application wherein it stood mentioned that on 25.6.2011, the case was simply deferred for another date and no arguments took place. He further submits that in fact arguments took place on that date. Taking into consideration the fact that an unconditional and unqualified apology stands tendered by Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate in the Court and further Shri Sudhir Thakur, has persuaded the Court that in view of long standing practice of Shri B.R. Sharma, Advocate, it will be in the interest of justice, in case the issue is put to rest at this stage. The Court while concurring with the submissions of Mr. Thakur, closes the issue, as far as Shri. B.R. Sharma, Advocate is concerned. On the request of Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, the case is adjourned to enable him to have instructions in the matter. List on 01.08.2018.” 6. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under: “5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases - Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation - The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section.” 7. A Court of law, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has to construe the expression “sufficient cause” with pragmatism in justice oriented approach. Where delay is sufficiently explained, the same ought to be condoned. A Court of law, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has to construe the expression “sufficient cause” with pragmatism in justice oriented approach. Where delay is sufficiently explained, the same ought to be condoned. However, it is equally well settled that “sufficient cause” contemplated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act means a cause which is beyond the control of the party, which has filed an application for condonation of delay. Undoubtedly, condonation of delay is a matter of discretion, however, the discretion has to be exercised by the Court diligently and when there is no sufficient explanation given by the applicant, then, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, the conduct of the party, which is approaching the Court for condonation of delay, is one of the relevant factors, which a Court considers while allowing or disallowing the application for condonation of delay. A party, which does not approach the Court with clean hands, cannot expect the Court to exercise discretion in its favour. The power conferred upon the Court for condonation of delay has to be exercised by the Court diligently and only if it is satisfied that the first party could not approach the Court within the period of limitation for reasons which are bonafide and cogent. The Court will not come to the rescue of a party which approaches the Court for condonation of delay with unclean hands and by levelling false allegations. 8. Coming to the facts of this case, the applicant has not approached this Court for condonation of delay with clean hands. The explanation put forth as to why the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation, cannot be termed to be “sufficient cause”. As I have already mentioned above, incorrect allegations stood levelled against the learned Presiding Officer, as also the functioning of the Court as to why the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. On enquiry, the averments made in the application have been found to be incorrect. This Court does not expect United India Insurance Company Limited, which is one of the leading Insurance Company of the country, i.e., applicant in the present case, to file application for condonation of delay on scandalous allegations. 9. On enquiry, the averments made in the application have been found to be incorrect. This Court does not expect United India Insurance Company Limited, which is one of the leading Insurance Company of the country, i.e., applicant in the present case, to file application for condonation of delay on scandalous allegations. 9. In these circumstances, in the facts of this case, as the applicant/appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and incorrect averments and assertions stood made in the application, the same is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the Kerela Chief Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund against receipt, within a period of four weeks from today.