Chattisgarh High Court

Avadhram vs Sevaram S/O Udeyram (Dead) 1. Rambai on 1 April, 2025

                                        1




         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                SA No. 307 of 2024

1. Avadhram S/o Jhaduva Lodhi Aged About 47 Years R/o Village
   Munglatola, Post Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. Pannalal S/o Jhaduva Lodhi Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Munglatolla,
   Post Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. Lalita Bai W/o Karakhram Lodhi, Aged About Years, R/o Village Kapa,
   Post Dhelga, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chandrika Bai W/o Karakhram Lodhi, Aged About Years, R/o Village
   Kapa, Post Dhelga, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
5. Kamla Bai W/o Khiyaram Lodhi, Aged About Years, R/o Village
   Bhaisamuda, Post Deverbija, Tahsil Saja, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
6. Ganga Bai W/o Badri Lodhi, Aged About Years, R/o Village Rakhi, Tahsil
   Saja, Post Devkar, District Durg, Chhhattisgarh
                                                               ... Appellants
                                     versus
1. Sevaram S/o Udeyram (Dead)
   1. Rambai W/o Sevaram (Dead)
2. Bharatlal S/o Sevaram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kandai, Tahsil
   Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Parvati Bai W/o Bhuvanlal (Dead) Through Lrs.
   3.1 - (A) Topsingh Patel S/o Bhuvanlal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
   Hadgaon, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetar, Chhattisgarh.
   3.2 - (B) Durgesh Patel S/o Bhuvanlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
   Hadgaon, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
4. Gauri Bai W/o Bharatlal (Dead, Sublimated)



             Digitally signed
             by BINI
  BINI    PRADEEP
  PRADEEP Date:
          2025.04.02
             10:22:07 +0530
                                      2

5. Pila Bai Alias Durpati Bai W/o Dashrathlal Aged About 42 Years R/o
   Village Jano, Police Station Saja, Tahsil Saja District Bemetara,
   Chhattisgarh.
6. Roshanlal (Dead) Through Lrs. S/o Sevaram
   6.1 - (A) Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Roshanlal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village
   Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
   6.2 - (B) Chandanlal S/o Roshanlal Aged About 18 Years R/o Village
   Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
7. Sachibai (Dead) Through Lrs. W/o Ramhari Nil
   7.1 - (A) Anand Kumar S/o Ramhari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
   Medhesara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
   7.2 - (B) Ramhari Kashyap S/o Narayan Kashyap Aged About 60 Years
   R/o Village Medhesara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
8. Madhu D/o Sevaram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kandai, Tahsil
   Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
9. Lata W/o Kubere Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chuhka, P.S.
   Khamariya, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
10. Sandhya W/o Govind Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Tura Semeriya,
   P.S. And Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
11. Manju W/o Dakvar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Suvartala, P.S. 7
   Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
12. Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs. S/o Jhadwa Lodhi Nil
   12.1 - (A) Amrika Bai Wd/o Late Motilal Aged About 57 Years R/o Village
   Muglatola, Post Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
   12.2 - (B) Prakash Patel S/o Late Motilal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
   Muglatola, Post Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
   12.3 - (C) Vijay Patel S/o Late Motilal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
   Muglatola, Post Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
13. Smt. Rohini Bai (Dead) Through Lrs. W/o Jhadwa Nil
   13.1 - (A) Hemin Bai W/o Pardeshi Ram Lodhi R/o Village Muglatola, Post
   Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
14. Ramanlal (Dead) S/o Late Jhurusingh Lodhi Aged About 45 Years Nil
                                       3

   14.1 - (A) Krishna Kumar S/o Late Ramanlal Patel Aged About 45 Years
   R/o Village Kandai (Hadahuli) Tahsil Saja District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
   14.2 - (B) Benlal S/o Late Ramanlal Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o
   Village Kandai (Hadahuli) Tahsil Saja District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
   14.3 - (C) Yamsingh S/o Late Ramanlal Patel Aged About 46 Years R/o
   Village Kandai (Hadahuli) Tahsil Saja District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
   14.4 - (D) Sunit Bai D/o Late Ramanlal Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o
   Village Kandai (Hadahuli) Tahsil Saja District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
15. Narad S/o Late Jhurusingh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kandai,
   Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
16. Sharda S/o Late Jhurusingh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kandai,
   Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
17. Jawahar S/o Late Jhurusingh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kandai,
   Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
18. Durga S/o Late Jhurusingh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kandai,
   Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
19. Smt. Shyambai W/o Sevaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Hedaspur,
   Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
20. Smt. Neera Bai W/o Dudhram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kandai,
   Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
21. Smt. Kavari Bai W/o Punnilal Aged About 27 Years Kandai, Tahsil Saja,
   District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
22. Smt. Uttarbai W/o Onkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kandai, Tahsil
   Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
23. Smt. Lachan Bai (Dead) Wd/o Late Jhurusingh Nil
24. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg Now District Bemetara,
   District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
25. Bhuwanlal S/o Dhruvram Patel Aged About 70 Years R/o Village
   Hadgaon, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
26. Rajesh S/o Bhuwanlal Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Hadgaon,
   Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                                         4

 27. Manorama D/o Roshanlal Aged About 35 Years W/o Abhishek Patel, R/o
    Village Tata Line, Near Sao Petrol Pump, Avantibai Square, Kohka, Bhilai,
    District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
 28. Minakshi D/o Roshanlal Aged About 30 Years W/o Gokul Sahu, R/o Ward
    No. 16, Parasram Ward, Nayapara, Bemetara, Tahsil And District
    Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
 29. Rashmi D/o Roshanlal Aged About 25 Years W/o Rajendra Patel, R/o
    Village Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
 30. Rajmumari D/o Motilal Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Gidhva, Tahsil And
    Police Stationd Dkhamariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
 31. Narmadabai D/o Motilal Patel Aged About 45 Years W/o Dilip Patel, R/o
    Village Jhaduva, Tahsil And Police Station Khamariya, District Bemetara,
    Chhattisgarh.
 32. Gaiyatribai D/o Motilal Aged About 43 Years W/o Sanat Patel, R/o Village
    Khairjhitikala, Tahsil And Police Station Khamariya, District Bemetara
    Chhattisgarh.
 33. Laxmibai D/o Pardeshi Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Semariya,
    Tahsil And Police Station Khamariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
 34. Mahesh Patel S/o Pardeshi Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
    Mungelatola, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
 35. Tulsibai D/o Pardeshi Patel Aged About 56 Years W/o Devrajkhashyap,
    R/o Village Paraswara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattiisgarh.
                                                              ... Respondents

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

Order Sheet

01/04/2025 Mr. Ravindra Sharma, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, counsel for respondents No.02, 20 &

22.

Ms. Neeta Tulsyani Thawani, Panel Lawyer for the State/

respondent No.24.

Heard on IA No.01/2024, application for condonation of

delay in filing instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

appellants belong to poor family and they reside at different

places. Information in respect of the judgment rendered by this

High Court in SA No.36/2003 was not given by the counsel to the

appellants within proper time, therefore, delay of 791 days was

occurred in filing the second appeal, which is bonafide and not

malafide, therefore, aforesaid application may be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents

No.2, 20 & 22 opposes the application and submits that there is a

huge delay of 791 days in filing the second appeal, therefore, IA

No.01/2024 may be rejected or it may be allowed by imposing

heavy cost.

As per record, civil suit bearing No.55-A/1991 was

dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated

21.9.1996 and appeal bearing No. Civil Appeal No.102-A/2002

was also dismissed on 30.9.2002 and in Second Appeal bearing

No.36/2003, the matter was remanded back to the first appellate

Court vide judgment dated 28.8.2019. Thereafter, fresh order was

passed by the first appellate Court on 07.01.2022 (Annexure-A/1).

Subsequently, instant second appeal was preferred by the

appellants on 10.6.2024, i.e. after 791 days.

Cause of delay in filing the second appeal is the poor

financial status of the defendants/appellants. They are being the

residents of different places and information with regard to

rendering of the judgment by the first appellate Court was

received by them belatedly. Though, the delay of 791 days

seems to be huge, but since the appeal has been filed by the

defendants, which shows their willingness to get justice on merit,

in such situation, it is settled preposition of law that until delay is

malafide, deliberate or ulterior motive, the delay ought to have

been condoned.

The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M.

Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] observed that the sufficient

cause has to be construed liberally especially when the delay is

not deliberate and mala fide. Paras 11 & 12 of the said decision

are as under:

"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitation newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching

the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari {AIR 1969 SC

575) and State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 749)."

In B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and others Versus State of

Karnataka and others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 123, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that when what is at

stake, is justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should not

be adopted by the Courts to do justice when there is miscarriage

of justice caused to a public litigant. It is apt to reproduce the

following observations:-

"28. If a statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it must be exercised within a reasonable time frame. In the instant case, it is evident that constant litigation has been carried on by the appellants, and therefore they can- not be accused of suddenly waking up af- ter 13 years to claim their land. Further, in the context of limitation, it has been held by this Court in a catena of cases that when what is at stake is justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should not be adopted by the Courts to do justice when there is miscarriage of justice caused to a public litigant. "

Having considered the facts of the instant case, no doubt

that there is a delay of 791 days, but it is not found to be malafide

or deliberate and interest of justice would be served, if, the delay

is condoned by imposing fine of Rs.2,000/- to the appellants/

defendants.

In view of the above, IA No.01/2024 is allowed and the

delay of 791 days in filing the second appeal is hereby condoned,

subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the appellants/

defendants in the account of High Court Legal Services

Committee, within 15 days from today.

Meanwhile, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that

further proceeding of Revenue Case bearing