In an application filed by the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL) before the Sikkim High Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of 223 days’ delay in filing a revision petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan took note of the error in NICL’s application seeking condonation, but allowed the same while directing cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
In the first part of the application, the delay was attributed to the party’s earlier counsel appearing on NICL’s behalf before the trial court. The second part stated that on 14-10-2025, NICL approached the present counsel after the impugned order was passed on 30-08-2025, and that 176 days were taken to prefer the present revision petition. The application disclosed that the present counsel received the certified copies from the trial court record only in the first week of December 2025 from the applicant. Hence, the revision petition could only be filed on 10-04-2026.
It was also submitted that the officers of NICL were on deputation for Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duty by the West Bengal government, which is why they took 50-60 days to verify and approve the draft revision.
The Court, by orders dated 13-08-2026 and 02-09-2026 directed the revisionist to explain the averment regarding the ill-health of the earlier counsel. NICL stated that the said averment had been incorrectly incorporated due to miscommunication and that the same was not based on any statement by the earlier counsel. It was stated that NICL had sincerely apologized to the earlier counsel after he had, by email, clarified that he was not ill and that the averment made in the application was not communicated by him. Hence, NICL withdrew the said averment and tendered an apology before the Court for the said error, stating that it had no intention to mislead the Court.
The Court stated that the explanation related to the present counsel reflected lethargy and failure on part of NICL, and that the involvement of the officers in SIR duty lacked material support. It was noted that as per NICL’s affidavit, the earlier application seeking condonation of delay was made on false pleas, which was later withdrawn. It was stated that in matters pertaining to condonation of delay, a justice oriented approach is to be taken, not a pedantic approach.
Further, it was said that blaming a counsel who was previously engaged, without a proper verification by NICL was a serious matter. The Court said that this was incorrect and not appreciated and that it should be avoided. It was also stated that litigants should be conscious about their rights and approach the Courts in time. The Court found itself inclined to condone the delay for a justice oriented approach and to give an opportunity to the applicant to argue the case on merits.
However, the Court directed NICL to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- within two weeks to the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority, which would be used for rehabilitating POCSO victims of sexual assault. Thus, the application was allowed and the delay was condoned.
