Chattisgarh High Court
G.V.Rathore (Dead) Through Lrs ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 October, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCC No.219 of 2021
G.V.Rathore (Dead) Through Lrs.
1. Devendra Ghanshyam Rathore S/o Late Ghanshyam Rathore
Aged About 60 Years R/o Jhulelal Chowk, Khelkarpara, Raipur
Chhattisgarh,
2. Mukesh G. Rathore S/o Late Ghanshyam Rathore Aged About
57 Years R/o Jhulelal Chowk, Khelkarpara, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Dinesh Ghanshyam Rathore S/o Late Ghanshyam Rathore
Aged About 58 Years R/o Jhulelal Chowk, Khelkarpara, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicants/Legal heirs of the
original Applicant)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post
Officer And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Earlier Address D K S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Executive Engineer, Chhirpani Project Division, Water Resources
Department, Dist. Kawardha Kabirdham, Dist. Kawardha (Kabirdham)
Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicants/ Respondents/Defendants
For Applicants : Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Non-Applicants/State : Ms. Reena Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order on Board
05.10.2021
1. Heard on I.A.No.01 of 2021, which is an application for condonation of
delay of 407 days in filing the instant M.C.C. for restoration of Revision
Petition No.36 of 2014, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order
dated 09.01.2019.
2. It is stated in the application that due to inadvertence, the original
applicant, namely, G.V.Rathore (since deceased now represented by his legal
representatives Devendra Ghanshyam Rathore and others), who died on
26.12.2020, could not file the petition within time and as such some delay
occurred in filing the same. It is stated further in the application that the
conduct of the applicant is bona fide and there is no ill-intention behind it and
owing to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, appropriate steps could not be
taken within the stipulated period. With these explanations, it is prayed that
delay occurred in filing the instant petition may be condoned.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Non-
Applicants/State has opposed the application by submitting, inter alia, that
there was no proper explanation offered on behalf of the applicants for the
huge delay in filing the instant petition and the application in this regard has
been made in a cursory manner even without explaining the same in a
satisfactory manner, and therefore, liable to be rejected.
4. Perusal of the impugned award dated 17.01.2014 passed by the
Arbitrator in Reference Case No. 06 of 2013 preferred under Section 7 of the
Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short, the Act of
1983) would show that the applicant's claim was disallowed in to to. Being
aggrieved with the refusal of the claim, the Revision Petition was filed by said
G.V.Rathore under Section 19 of the Act of 1983, which came to be dismissed
for non-prosecution on 09.01.2019 as no one had appeared earlier also when
it was called continuously on 07.01.2019 and 08.01.2019.
5. Be that as it may, it appears from a bare perusal of the application that
no sufficient reasons have, in fact, been assigned for condonation of delay in
filing the instant M.C.C. and, instead a plea has been taken to the effect that
due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, necessary steps could not be taken
within the stipulated period. It, however, appears that the period of limitation
for filing the instant petition for restoration of the said Revision Petition, which
was dismissed in default on 09.01.2019, has expired even much prior to the
outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, it appears that a false plea has been
taken with an ulterior motive in order to get the delay of 407 days condoned in
filing the instant petition. The applicants are, therefore, not entitled to get the
delay condoned on such a concocted plea and the application for restoration
is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
6. At this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the
matter of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157 are to be seen, wherein it has been
held at paragraphs 23 and 24 as under:-
"23. What needs to be emphasised is that even
though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is
required to be adopted in the exercise of power
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other
similar statutes, the courts can neither become
oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has
acquired certain rights on the basis of the
judgment under challenge and a lot of time is
consumed at various stages of litigation apart from
the cost."
"24. What colour the expression "sufficient cause"
would get in the factual matrix of a given case
would largely depend on bona fide nature of the
explanation. If the court finds that there has been
no negligence on the part of the applicant and the
cause shown for the delay does not lack bona
fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the
other hand, the explanation given by the applicant
is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly
negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be
a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone
the delay."
7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, I do not find that
the explanations offered by the Applicants for condonation of delay in filing
this instant petition are genuine and as such, the same deserve to be
rejected.
8. The application for condonation of delay in filing the instant petition is
accordingly rejected. Consequently, the M.C.C. is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
