Balbir vs Balgovind
2022 Latest Caselaw 8033 MP

                                                                       1
                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                SA No. 1381 of 2021
                                                       (BALBIR AND OTHERS Vs BALGOVIND AND OTHERS)

                                   Dated : 17-06-2022
                                         Mr. Anil Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants.

                                         Ms. Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Heard on I.A. No. 7412/2021, which is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 882 days, as per the Office note.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said delay has

occasioned on account of the negligence on the part of the counsel who was appearing on behalf of appellants before the learned appellate Court.

Having gone through the record of the learned trial Court, it appears that initially, the appeal was being heard at Beohari and thereafter, it was transferred to Jaisingh Nagar on 13.11.2018. On that day, Mr. G.P. Tiwari, learned counsel had appeared on behalf of the appellants before the learned trial Court. On the next date of hearing, which was fixed was 5.12.2018, the counsel who had registered his presence on behalf of the appellants herein, once again appeared before the Court below. On 12.11.2019, the learned counsel Mr. G.P. Tiwari,

was not present before the learned appellate Court and therefore, the appellants herein went unrepresented and the appeal was proceeded against them ex- parte. The final arguments were heard on 30.1.2019 and the judgment was pronounced on 01.2.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that at the time of Signature Not Verified SAN hearing of the appeal, the parties need not be physically present before the Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2022.06.17 17:32:44 IST learned appellate Court and only the arguments are heard by the Court. He

further states that the counsel for the appellants erred in not informing them either of the transfer of the case from Beohari to Jaisingh Nagar or the appeal being allowed against the appellants on 01.02.2019.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that no plausible reasons have been assigned about the delay of 882 days in filing the appeal.

Having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the record of the learned trial Court, it appears that the learned counsel for the appellants herein appeared before the Court to which the appeal was transferred only on 13.11.2018 and on 5.12.2018 and thereafter, did not appear. The

learned appellate Court on its part also showed undue haste, as it declared the appellants ex-parte on the very first occasion of their absence on 12.11.2019. The appellants came to know about the order and took out the certified copy through another counsel in March, 2021 and the appeal has been filed thereafter on 05.10.2021. As, during the said period, the entire country was under the grip of Corona Virus Pandemic, which had disturbed the normal functioning of the Court and the life of the general public, the delay on the part of the appellants actually works to about nine months, excluding the period of limitation of 90 days.

Under the circumstances, I.A. No.7412/2021 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

List this case on 07.07.2022 for arguments on the question of admission.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) Signature Not Verified SAN JUDGE

Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA a Date: 2022.06.17 17:32:44 IST