The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajesh Dhakad
2022 Latest Caselaw 3847 MP

                                     1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
                              FA No. 2489 of 2018
                    (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs RAJESH DHAKAD)

Dated : 21-03-2022
      Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State.
      Shri Prem Singh Pal, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.5271/2018, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and I.A. No.5270/2018, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC.

The appellants by filing application under Section 5 of Limitation Act have prayed that after receiving the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated

18/07/2017 passed by learned 7th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, (M.P.), the appellants which is a government department has first approached the Government Pleader Gwalior (M.P.) and after his legal opinion due to different stages of process in the department, the appellants could not file the appeal in time. The detailed description which is given from para 2 to 7 of the application is supported by the documents (Annexure A/1 to Annexure A/12) to the process in the department concerned.

The said application is also duly supported by an affidavit of the Officer Incharge concerned.

Learned counsel for the respondent by filing the reply dated 14/02/2022 has vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its dismissal.

After going through the Annexures filed in support of the application, reasons for delay in filing the appeal is found to be bona fide and sufficient. The counter affidavit is not filed by the respondent to challenge the facts mentioned in the application.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Ors. [(2000) 9 SCC 94] has observed that power to condone the delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. This Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji held that the expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of

courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is adopted.

In the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [ (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Apex Court held while contesting the application for condonation of delay, Words "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally. Acceptability of

explanation for the delay is the sole criterion, length of delay not relevant.

In the case of D.D. Vaishnav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [AIR (2009) SC 2170], the Apex Court has condoned the delay of 589 days by applying the same principles.

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs. Gopi Chand Atreja [AIR (2019) SC 1423], wherein the Apex Court on account of not showing the sufficient cause held that delay cannot be condoned. However, in this case, as discussed above, sufficient cause with regard to delay in filing the appeal has been explained, therefore, above cited case does not support the contention of respondent.

In view of the principles as mentioned above and having examined the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

In view of above, I.A.No.5271/2018 is allowed and delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

In view of facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No.5270/2018, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC is also allowed and it is directed that the effect and operation of impugned judgment and decree dated 18/07/2017 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in case No.1B/15 E.D. shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Heard on IA. No.1010/2022, an application filed by the respondent for disposal of this appeal having become infructuous on account of release of his truck bearing registration No. M.P.-07-G-3389.

However, looking to the fact that present appeal is filed against the order of compensation of Rs.31,40,000/- in favour of plaintiff/respondent and the release of

truck has no impact on the issues raised in this appeal, therefore, the IA. No.1010/2022 is hereby dismissed.

Let the case be listed for final hearing in week commencing 25/04/2022.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE

vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI VALSALA 2022.03.22 18:23:10 +05'30' VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'