Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamleshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No.17061/2019
(Kamleshi & Ors. Vs. The state of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, dated: 26.02.2021
Shri Ankur Maheshwari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Jitesh Sharma, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1
to 3/State.
Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 16.07.2019
passed in Case No.251/Appeal/16-17 by the Additional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena (M.P.), whereby the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed alongwith
the appeal under Section 44(2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959
has been dismissed on the ground that no plausible explanation has
been putforth for the delay in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned
Additional Commissioner has rejected the application on the
ground that day to day explanation for delay in filing the appeal has
not been explained. Petitioner No.1 is a widow lady having three
children and admittedly there is a delay of about 45 days only
because limitation for filing the appeal is 45 days and if this period
is deducted, then the only delay is of 45 days.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhivchandra
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No.17061/2019
(Kamleshi & Ors. Vs. The state of M.P. & Ors.)
Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More and others as reported
in (2019) 6 SCC 387, wherein it has been held as under:-
"15. It is a fairly well-settled law that
"sufficient cause" should be given liberal
construction so as to advance sustainable justice
when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want
of bona fides could be imputable to the appellant.
After referring to various judgments, in B.
Madhuri, this Court held as under:-
"6. The expression "sufficient cause"
used in Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic
enough to enable the courts to apply
the law in a meaningful manner
which serves the ends of justice. No
hard-and-fast rule has been or can be
laid down for deciding the
applications for condonation of delay
but over the years courts have
repeatedly observed that a liberal
approach needs to be adopted in such
matters so that substantive rights of
the parties are not defeated only on
the ground of delay."
16. Observing that the rules of limitation are not
meant to destroy the rights of the parties, in N.
Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, this Court has
held as under:
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to
destroy the rights 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 necessitating
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No.17061/2019
(Kamleshi & Ors. Vs. The state of M.P. & Ors.)
newer persons to seek legal remedy
by approaching the courts. So a
lifespan 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."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of
the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court as well as the reasons
stated in the application, the application deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Shri Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate
appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that there is no error
committed by the Additional Commissioner in rejecting the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as no
explanation has been putforth by the petitioners for the delay in
filing the appeal. In the catena of judgments, the Apex Court has
held that day to day explanation is necessary while considering the
application seeking condonation of delay. Thus, in such situation,
this petition deserves to be dismissed.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No.17061/2019
(Kamleshi & Ors. Vs. The state of M.P. & Ors.)
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as the Apex Court judgment in the case of
Bhivchandra Shankar More (supra), this Court is inclined to
allow the Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 16.07.2019
passed in Case No.251/Appeal/16-17 by the Additional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena (M.P.) is set aside. The
application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is
allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The
Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits in
accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both
the parties, as expeditiously as possible.
7. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari)
Judge
Shanu
SHANU
RAIKWAR
2021.02.26
17:49:54 -08'00'
