JUDGMENT : (Prayer: CMP No.606 of 2021 is filed under Section 23(3) of Railway Claims Tribunal, to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal, against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai. CMA SR No.12859 of 2020 is preferred against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.) 1. The Miscellaneous Petition on hand is filed under 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, against the order dated 15.03.2019 made in O.A.(II-U) 56/2018 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Uncondonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. Law of limitation is substantive. Litigations / appeals are expected to be filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Statutes. Rule is to follow limitation. Condonation of delay is an exception. Exceptions are to be exercised discreetly, if the reasons furnished are genuine and acceptable. The Courts are vested with the discretion to condone the delay. This does not mean that enormous delay are to be condoned mechanically. Undoubtedly, if the reasons are candid and convincing, then the Courts are empowered to exercise its power of discretion so as to condone the delay. Power of discretion is a double-edged weapon. Thus, the discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and uniformly. Exercise of power of discretion if made excessively, would defeat the purpose and object of the law of limitation. The Courts are expected not to travel beyond the permissible extent, so as to condone the enormous delay in a routine or mechanical manner. Power of discretion is to be exercised to mitigate the injustice, if any occurred to the litigants. 3. A fine distinction is to be drawn in respect of ‘acceptability’ and ‘unacceptability’ as far as the condonation of delay is concerned. The reasons and its genuinity are important for condoning the delay. It became unnecessary that the Courts have to consider the precedents and condone the delay thereafter or reject the same. There are judgments far and against, but predominantly the facts, circumstances and the genuinity of the reasons of each case plays a pivotal role in considering the relief of condonation of delay. 4. It became unnecessary that the Courts have to consider the precedents and condone the delay thereafter or reject the same. There are judgments far and against, but predominantly the facts, circumstances and the genuinity of the reasons of each case plays a pivotal role in considering the relief of condonation of delay. 4. Question may arise the purpose and object of the law of limitation as refusal of condonation of delay sometime causes denial of rights to the litigants. However, there is a definite purpose for prescription of period of limitation for institution of litigations. Different time limits are prescribed for different kinds of litigations. However, there is a strong reason for such prescription of limitation in various statutes. The litigants are always expected to be vigilant over their rights and liabilities, duties and responsibilities. If any citizen of our great nation is allowed to exercise his right at his whims and fancies without reference to the law of limitation, circumstances may arise that the rights of other fellow citizens are prejudiced or affected. Rights cannot be exercised unguidedly. All rights including fundamental rights under the Constitution of India is certainly qualified and subject to various restrictions under other laws. Thus, the rights of citizen and corresponding duty towards the other fellow citizen are to be balanced in such a manner without causing any prejudice, which resulted prescription of law of limitation. Exercise of right by a citizen cannot infringe the right of other fellow citizen. Rights and duties are corresponding and therefore, the law require a limitation for institution of litigations. 5. Any citizen slept over his right, cannot wake up one fine morning and knock the doors of the Court for redressal of his grievances. The person, who slept over, has to loose his right and efflux of time results expiry of the cause. In the event of institution of litigation after a prolonged period, the other person, who has to defend the litigation will not only suffer, but would lead to harassment. These all are the mitigating factors, which all are to be considered, while dealing with the law of limitation as contemplated under various statutes. Thus, the law of limitation has got a definite reasoning, logic and various time limitations are prescribed under various statutes by adopting the principles of “Doctrine of Reasonableness”. 6. These all are the mitigating factors, which all are to be considered, while dealing with the law of limitation as contemplated under various statutes. Thus, the law of limitation has got a definite reasoning, logic and various time limitations are prescribed under various statutes by adopting the principles of “Doctrine of Reasonableness”. 6. The principles of reasonableness would be adopted with reference to the nature of litigations to be instituted. Various time limits are prescribed for Civil litigations, Appeals and other kind of litigations, considering various factors and by applying the Doctrine of reasonableness. Thus, the law of limitation became substantive and to be followed scrupulously in all circumstances and on exceptional cases, delay is to be condoned, if the reasons are genuine and acceptable. 7. Exceptions can never be adopted as a rule. Exceptions are to be exercised exceptionally and the power discretion is to be exercised discreetly, so as to mitigate the injustice if any occurred. Condoning long delay in a routine or mechanical manner is not a good practice by the Courts. It would result to an injustice in respect of the opposite parties, who are expected to defend the litigations. Thus, the power of discretion is to be exercised cautiously and delay has to be condoned by recording reasons and such reasons must be based on sound legal principles. 8. It is a trend in the Bar that whenever the petition for condonation of enormous delay is filed, requests are made to impose heavy costs and condone the delay. This Court also witnesses many number of such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that they are prepared to pay the costs. This Court is of the humble opinion that by imposing heavy costs, long delay cannot be condoned. In the event of condoning enormous delay by imposing heavy costs, undoubtedly, the legal principles are not only compromised, but ‘justice’ is not done. The Courts are not supposed to compromise on the legal principles under the guise of imposing certain costs. Costs are imposed on certain circumstances, when the Court forms an opinion that lapses are minor and on account of such minor lapses, the parties should not suffer or their rights cannot be denied. However, costs cannot be in terms with the number days of delay. Costs are imposed on certain circumstances, when the Court forms an opinion that lapses are minor and on account of such minor lapses, the parties should not suffer or their rights cannot be denied. However, costs cannot be in terms with the number days of delay. It is not an arithmetic principle, where long delay is to be condoned with heavy costs and for meagre delay, minimum costs is to be imposed. Such a principle is opposed to public policy and this Court is not prepared to accept such concept of imposing heavy costs for condoning enormous delay by violating the Law of Limitation, which is substantive and the legal principles. 9. Once the delay petition is filed, the same is to be dealt with independently by scrutinising the reasons stated. For condoning such huge delay, if the Courts are convinced with the reasons stated by the litigant for the purpose of condoning the delay, then the Courts are expected to go into the merits. Contrarily, condonation of delay cannot be allowed based on the merits of the main appeal. Of course, it is not a trite law to follow. However, in certain circumstances, Courts can take a lenient view if the reasons are genuine. For instance, if the delay is about 3 months or six months, the Courts can take a lenient view, but not otherwise. 10. Based on the above principles, let us now consider the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in respect of the present civil miscellaneous appeal. The only reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition is that the petitioners are hailing from poor and uneducated family and therefore, they have no legal awareness and thus, there is a delay of 224 days in filing the appeal. 11. Ignorance of law is not an excuse. This being the basic principles to be followed and when the petitioners have already conducted a case before the Railway Tribunal, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not having adequate knowledge, cannot be accepted at all. When they had an experience in conducting a case before the Railway Tribunal, the petitioners cannot say that they are not aware of the appeal procedures. When they had an experience in conducting a case before the Railway Tribunal, the petitioners cannot say that they are not aware of the appeal procedures. This being the factum, a mere statement that the petitioners are hailing from a poor and uneducated family and they have not legal awareness, cannot be accepted at all and such statements are flimsy and cannot stand under the scrutiny of the principles of law. 12. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the reasons stated by the petitioners for condoning the long delay of 224 days are neither candid nor convincing and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.606 of 2021 stands dismissed and consequently, C.M.A.SR.No.12859 of 2020 is rejected at the SR Stage itself. However, there shall be no order as to costs.