Reevanlal Lodhi vs Jeevanlal Kaushik (Lodhi)
2022 Latest Caselaw 2700 Chatt

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                            Order Sheet

                                          FA No. 142 of 2020

                            Reevanlal Lodhi Versus Jeevanlal Kaushik (lodhi)




26/04/2022          Mr. Suresh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr. C.K. Sahu counsel for the respondent.

Mr. Sanjay Pathak, PL for the State/respondent.

Heard on IA No. 01, application for condonation of delay.

The appellants were the defendants before the trial Court along with respondent No. 3 (Sharad Kumar Sahu). It is contended in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that after passing the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019, certified copy of the same was applied on 19.03.2019, which was received by the defendant No. 9, who is respondent No. 3 herein i.e. Sharad Kumar Sahu.

It is further stated in the application that defendant No. 9 kept the same with him and never informed to the other defendants about passing the judgment and decree therefore, the appellants herein under the bonafide belief that after receiving the certified copy the appeal would be preferred.

Subsequently, when they came to know in the beginning July, 2020 about the passing of the judgment and decree, they rushed to arrange the records and money and after arranging the money for the Court fee etc. they contracted the counsel to file appeal, however, due to Lockdown of Covid-19, the appeal could not be preferred which was subsequently filed on 17th July, 2020.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is bonafide mistake and it would not be deliberate on their part to delay the appeal, therefore, in order to advance the cause of justice, the delay of 390 days in filing the appeal, may be condoned.

Reply to the application has not been filed by the respondents.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Having considered the submission made in the application which is supported by the affidavit, it appears that sufficient reason has been shown by the appellants, therefore, considering the facts of the case, we condone the delay in 390 days in filing the appeal.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Respondent/plaintiff is already represented, no formal notice would be required.

Issue notice to the respondents No. 2 & 3 on payment of process fee by ordinary and registered post.

Paper book also be filed in accordance with the rules.

                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-

                      (Goutam Bhaduri)                        (N K Chandravanshi)
                            Judge                                   Judge

Pawan