Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subodh Kumar Jaggi vs Vinod Kumar Jaggi (Dead) Thr Lrs. ... on 15 March, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RP-274-2021
(SUBODH KUMAR JAGGI vs VINOD KUMAR JAGGI (DEAD) THROUGH l..R.S &
ANOTHER)
JABALPUR
DATED : 15.03.2021
Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A. No.2182/2021, which is an application for
condonation of delay.
There is a delay of 813 days in filing this review petition.
The petitioner is seeking review of the judgment dated
23.11.2017
whereby the Second Appeal No.931/2004 was
dismissed and the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court were affirmed.
Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that delay was
caused due to bona fide reason and on merit the petitioner has
good case because sixty days' notice was required to be given to
the Society, which was not given and no question of law in this
regard was framed, therefore, re-hearing is required.
Having examined the matter, it is noticed that no proper
explanation for the delay has been furnished by the review
petitioner. The delay is inordinate and a perusal of the
application reveals that the delay has not been explained at all. A
plea has been taken that the petitioner had suffered some heart
ailment but neither nature of such ailment is disclosed nor the
time or duration of such ailment has been mentioned. No medical
document in support of such a plea has been enclosed. There is
no details given in the application for condonation of delay as to
what the petitioner had done after 23.11.2017 and as to what had
prevented and what are the relevant dates when the petitioner
was prevented from approaching this Court for filing the review
petition. That apart, the record reflects that the questions of law
were framed in the appeal on 12.08.2013 and thereafter the
appeal was heard on 23.11.2017 deciding the aforesaid questions
of law. If there was any additional question of law involved in
the matter, the petitioner could have raised a submission in this
regard at the time of final hearing of the second appeal. The
same was not done.
The Supreme Court in the matter of G. Ramegowda,
Major and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142 has held as under :
"14. The contours of the area of
discretion of the courts in the matter of
condonation of delays in filing appeals are
set out in a number of pronouncements of
this Court. See: Ramlal, Motilal and
Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.; Shakuntala
Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari; Concord of
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi;
Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan; Collector,
Land Acquisition v. Katiji etc. There is, it is
true, no general principle saving the party
from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is
negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or
lack of bona fides on the part of the party or
its counsel there is no reason why the
opposite side should be exposed to a time-
barred appeal. Each case will have to be
considered on the particularities of its own
special facts. However, the expression
'sufficient cause' in Section 5 must receive a
liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice and generally delays in
preferring appeals are required to be
condoned in the interest of justice where no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or
lack of bona fides is imputable to the party
seeking condonation of the delay."
The Supreme Court in the matter of Maniben Devraj Shah
vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC
157 has held as under :
"23. What needs to be emphasised is
that even though a liberal and justice
oriented approach is required to be adopted
in the exercise of power under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act and other similar statutes,
the Courts can neither become oblivious of
the fact that the successful litigant has
acquired certain rights on the basis of the
judgment under challenge and a lot of time
is consumed at various stages of litigation
apart from the cost. 24. What colour the
expression be "sufficient cause" would get
in the factual matrix of a given case would
largely depend on bona fide nature of the
explanation. If the court finds that there has
been no negligence on the part of the
applicant and the cause shown for the delay
does not lack bona fides, then it may
condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the
explanation given by the applicant is found
to be concocted or he is thoroughly
negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it
would be a legitimate exercise of discretion
not to condone the delay."
The Supreme court in the matter of Meera Bhanja (Smt)
Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt) reported in (1995) 1
SCC 170 considering the limited scope of review has held that
scope of review is confined to error apparent on the face of the
record. The error must be such as would be apparent on mere
looking of the record without requiring any long drawn process
of reasoning. It is also settled position in law that review power
may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was
erroneous on merits as that would be a province of a Court of
appeal and the review power should not be confused with the
appellate power.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that
there is no justifiable reason exists for condoning such an
inordinate delay in filing the review petition.
Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, I.A. No.2182/2021
is rejected and review petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.03.18
16:34:58 +05'30'
