Ravindra Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8488 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8488 MP
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ravindra Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                             1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        RP-969-2021
               Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of MP

Gwalior, Dated : 08-12-2021

      Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, Counsel for the applicant.

      Shri R.K. Awasthi, Counsel for the State.

      This application has been filed for extension of time for

submitting representation before the authorities as directed by this

Court by order dated 02.11.2017 passed in W.P. No.7734/2011.

      It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant had filed an application for grant of arm license and since

the said application was rejected by order dated 11.01.2010 by

passing   non-speaking      order,   therefore,   he   preferred    W.P.

No.7734/2011 and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated

02.11.2017 directing to submit fresh representation within 15 days

from the date of order to the competent authority. It is submitted that

the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court was never

communicated to the petitioner and, accordingly, he could not make a

representation and, therefore, it is prayed that the period of 15 days as

granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated

02.11.2017 may be extended up to 31.12.2021.

      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

      It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the

order dated 02.11.2017 passed in W.P. No.7734/2011, therefore, he
                             2
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       RP-969-2021
              Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of MP

could not move representation within the stipulated period.

      However, this submission made by the counsel for the

petitioner is per se incorrect because the certified copy which has

been filed along with the present review petition was supplied to the

petitioner on 02.08.2019, therefore, it is clear that at least on

02.08.2019 the petitioner was aware of the fact that he was to move

the application within a period of 15 days, but still no review was

filed. Furthermore, except by making a bald statement that he was not

aware of the order dated 02.11.2017, nothing has been placed on

record to show that the petitioner has ever tried to contact his

counsel. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the

petitioner was freely visiting different places and had a full

opportunity to contact his counsel.

      Section 17 of the Limitation Act speaks as under:-

              "17. Effect of fraud or mistake.--(1) Where, in
       the case of any suit or application for which a period
       of limitation is prescribed by this Act,--
              (a) the suit or application is based upon the
       fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or

(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or

(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP-969-2021 Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of MP

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:

Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which--

(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or

(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or

(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.

(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:

Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be."

From the plain reading of this section, it is clear that unless and

until a person is unable to discover the mistake in spite of due

diligence, he cannot take advantage of Section 17 of Limitation Act.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP-969-2021 Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of MP

There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had ever

acted with due diligence to find out the status of his W.P.

No.7734/2011. Furthermore, the orders of this Court are also

available on the website of the High Court and the petitioner could

have easily verified the same from the website of the High Court.

As no case is made out for review of order dated 02.11.2017

passed in W.P. No.7734/2011, accordingly, the review petition is