Ramavtar Saket (Dead) Thr. Lrs ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8905 MP

H IG H CO URT O F MADH YA P RADESH , P RINCI PAL
              SE AT AT JA BALP UR

                S e cond Appe al No.5 3 0/ 2 0 21

  ( R am a vt ar S a ke t & Or s v. S t at e of M.P. a nd Ot her s)


16.12.2021

        Mr. Anil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
appellants.
        Mr. Upendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.

Mr. R.N. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

Heard on I.A. No.2938/2021, an application for condonation of delay.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Beohari, district - Shahdol in Civil Appeal No.91-A/2008 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants has been dismissed. The said appeal had arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Behohari, District Shahdol in Civil Suit No.62-A/2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents has been decreed holding that the plaintiffs are owners and are in possession of land bearing khasra number 3384 admeasuring 0.243 hectare. The Court below also directed the defendants 1 to 4 to handover the vacant possession of 10 decimals encroached by them. The

court below also granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The aforesaid decree passed by the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court by the impugned judgment.

The Court below found that the defendants failed to file any documents showing their ownership with regard to 10 decimal of the disputed land. The defendants/appellants also failed to establish the title by adverse possession as they could not show that they are in peaceful possession of the disputed land for a period of twelve years. There are concurrent findings by both the courts below against the appellants.

So far as the application for condonation of delay is concerned, it is worthmentioning here that the lower Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment on 24.02.2012 and this appeal has been filed before this Court on 27.03.2021 after an inordinate delay of nine years.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal suffers from delay and latches, because of which the same is liable to be dismissed.

In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T.Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that 'law

does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis' "In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant". Similar view has been expressed in the cases of B.S.Bajwa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 2 SCC 523; Union of India and others Vs. A. Durairaj (dead) by Lrs, (2010) 14 SCC 389; Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and others, 2013 (10) SCC 627; and Government of India and another Vs. George Philip (2006) 13 SCC 1.

In the application for condonation of delay itself, the appellants mentioned that the appellants came to know about the judgment of the lower appellate court in May, 2013 and tried to file appeal before this Court. It is further stated that Ramavatar who was Karta of the family expired on 07.01.2015. Thereafter also the appellants kept sleeping for about six years.

The grounds raised by the appellants for condonation of delay cannot be said to be just, proper and satisfactory. In fact, when the execution proceedings initiated in recent time, the appellants have come this Court by filing this appeal. Such a lackadaisical attitude cannot be countenanced. Hence, delay is not liable to be condoned.

Hence, I.A. No.2938/2021 is accordingly dismissed. As this Court has held that the appeal is not maintainable being time barred, the question for passing any order on the application for grant of stay does not arise. Thus, I.A. No.2937/2021 stands dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being time barred.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) Judge ks

Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2021.12.20 03:13:32

-08'00'