Bhup Narayan Soni vs Smt. Moti Bai
2021 Latest Caselaw 8151 MP

1 MP-1455-2021 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MP No. 1455 of 2021 (BHUP NARAYAN SONI Vs SMT. MOTI BAI AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 03-12-2021 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed being aggrieved of order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Deori so also the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Additional Collector, District Sagar whereby rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the

order of the Sub Division Officer (Revenue), Deori.

Petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is son of Late Ram Charan Soni. Petitioner's case is that in the year 1980 certain revenue entries were made in favour of the petitioner on death of original land holder Ram Charan Soni. After 40 years of those proceedings, an appeal was filed by Smt. Moti Bai D/o Late Ram Charan Soni and other legal heirs of Smt. Narmada Bai Soni D/o Late Ram Charan Soni as well as legal heirs of Smt. Gulab Bai Soni D/o Late Ram Charan Soni within application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act mentioning therein that Tehsildar Deori, District Sagar passed

order dated 02.07.1980 when daughters of Late Ram Charan Soni namely Smt. Moti Bai Soni, Smt. Narmada Bai Soni and Smt. Gulab Bai Soni were staying in their matrimonial homes and being marginally reiterate and pardanasheen had no knowledge about the activities of Bhup Narayan Soni who got all the properties of late Ram Charan Soni mutated in his name without either impleading them as a party or taking their consent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Sub Divisional Officer has condoned the delay and has fixed the case for recording of evidence on 18.01.2021. It is submitted that against this order revision was filed before the Additional Collector which too have been dismissed in a cryptic manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Dhani Ram and another vs. Mohd. Usman and Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2021.12.04 18:32:21 IST 2 MP-1455-2021 others, AIR 1974 Delhi 89, so also on the law laid down in case of Smt. Madhuribai vs. Grasim Industris Ltd., Nagda, AIR 1995 M.P. 160 and submits that it is the duty of the applicant to explain sufficient cause for delay. Each days delay is to be explained. Plea of lack of knowledge of limitation is not available to her and, therefore, condonation of delay was refused.

Similarly, in the case of Dhani Ram (supra), it is held that, ignorance cannot constitute a sufficient cause. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments of the Delhi High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court respectively, it is submitted that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 and set a side impugned orders.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through records, it is evident that 'fauti namantaran' was carried out in favour of Bhup Narayan Soni on death of his father. Prima facie, it appears that Bhup Narayan Soni had not disclosed fact of survival of three sisters who are legal heirs of late Ram Charan Soni and, therefore, sisters and legal heirs when came to know of the fact that Bhup Narayan Soni apportioned their ancestral property in collusion with the Court of Tehsildar then they had filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases and provides that Section 5 gives the courts a discretion in respect of which jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood "the words 'Sufficient Cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bonafide is imputable to a party" is the settled principle of law as held in cases of Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari And Ors, AIR 1969 SC 575 and Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 SC 361, it is held that if the party who has applied for extension of period shows that the delay was due to any of the

Signature Not Verified facts mentioned in the explanation that would be treated as sufficient cause, SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2021.12.04 18:32:21 IST 3 MP-1455-2021 and after it is treated as sufficient cause, the question may then arise whether discretion should be exercised in favour of the party or not.

In fact a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Madhuribai (supra) has failed to take into consideration law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Execution, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353.

In fact law is well settled as has been held in case of State (Nct Of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan, 2008(10)JT, 179 , that the expression 'Sufficient Cause' should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay.

In case of State Of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Ors, AIR 1972 SC 749, it is held that "the words 'Sufficient Cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bonafide is imputable to a party".

When tested on touchstone of aforesaid legal pronouncements, impugned orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Additional Collector cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court specially when prima facie an act of misrepresentation/fraud appears to be available against the present petitioner in obtaining orders from the Tehsildar suppressing the fact of the presence of three sisters as legal heirs of late Ram Charan Soni.

Thus, petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

Tabish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2021.12.04 18:32:21 IST