Smt. Rama Bai D/O Late Shri Veeran @ ... vs Satish Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 13644 MP

                                                                 1
                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                        ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                                     MISC. PETITION No. 4525 of 2022

                                            BETWEEN:-
                                       1.

SMT. RAMA BAI D/O LATE SHRI VEERAN @ ATAL SINGH W/O SHRI ANTRAM BHALAVI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, VILLAGE GOBERVELI POST AMGAON THANA LAKHANVADA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BASANT KUMAR ARMO S/O LATE VEERAN SINGH @ ATAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM SAREKHA (KEOLARI), THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. BALWANT SINGH ARMO S/O LATE VEERAN SINGH @ ATAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM SAREKHA (KEOLARI), THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. RAMAN SINGH ARMO S/O LATE VEERAN SINGH @ ATAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM SAREKHA (KEOLARI), THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. CHAMAN SINGH ARMO S/O LATE VEERAN SINGH @ ATAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM SAREKHA (KEOLARI), THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. MAHENDRA SINGH ARMO S/O LATE VEERAN SINGH @ ATAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM SAREKHA (KEOLARI), THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified SAN 7. SMT. GEETA BAI W/O YASHWANT SINGH ARMO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O CASTE Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST PARDHAN GRAM AND POST GUDRU, THANA CHANGUTOLA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT

BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. MANOHAR SINGH S/O YASHWANT SINGH ARMO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM AND POST GUDRU, THANA CHANGUTOLA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. ROSHNI D/O YASHWANT SINGH ARMO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM AND POST GUDRU, THANA CHANGUTOLA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. RAGINI D/O YASHWANT SINGH ARMO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM AND POST GUDRU, THANA CHANGUTOLA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

11. MAHIMA D/O YASHWANT SINGH ARMO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O CASTE PARDHAN GRAM AND POST GUDRU, THANA CHANGUTOLA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI BHANU PRATAP YADAV, ADVOCATE )

AND

1. SATISH KUMAR S/O LATE HEMCHAND PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SATENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE HEMCHAND PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SHRI SANTLAL (DIED) THROUGH LRS MOHANIYA BAI W/O LATE SHRI SANTLAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified SAN

4. PREETAM S/O LATE SHRI SANTLAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. CHIMMAN S/O LATE SHRI SANTLAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SALAKRAM S/O LATE SHRI SANTLAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. SMT. GEETA KUMRE D/O LATE SHRI SANTLAL W/O RAMESH KUMRE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O BHARVELI THANA BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. SM T. PREETA UIKEY D/O LATE SHRI SANTLAL W/O RADHEYSHYAM UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O MUNGAPAR THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. SMT. NEETA UIKEY D/O LATE SHRI SANTLAL W/O SHIVKUMAR UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEAR S, R/O GRAM GWARI (NEAR THAWAR NAINPUR) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. SMT. SAVATRI BAI D/O LATE CHATRU PRADHAN W/O NEMI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEAR S, R/O UNCHIBARANG DURGA CHOWK (BHARVELI) POST BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

11. SMT. MIRA BAI W/O LATE ROOPLAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GRAM CAMP KEOLARI, THANA BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

12. SHIVKUMAR S/O LATE ROOPLAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O GRAM CAMP KEOLARI, THANA BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

13. SHIV NARAYAN S/O LATE ROOPLAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O GRAM CAMP KEOLARI, THANA BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH) Signature Not Verified SAN

14. SHIV PRASAD S/O LATE ROOPLAL, AGED Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O GRAM CAMP KEOLARI, THANA BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT

BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

15. MAYA BAI D/O LATE SHRI ROOPLAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O GRAM CAMP KEOLARI, THANA BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

16. MAMTA BAI D/O LATE SHRI ROOPLAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM BHARVELI THANA BHARVELI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

17. GOVIND PRASAD S/O SHRI MER SINGH MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O GRAM KOHKA POST BAGLAI TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

18. CHANDULAL S/O LATE BAJARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM GOVERBALI POST AMGAON THANA LAKHANWADA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

19. BHAGWATI BAI (DIED) THROUGH LRS NARAYAN PRASAD (DIED) THROUGH LRS SMT. SHIVKALI MARKAM W/O LATE NARAYAN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O KASHAI MOHALLA WARD NO. 5 NEAR PANI KI TANKI NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

20. SMT. PRATIBHA TEKAM D/O LATE NARAYAN PRASAD W/O DEVENDRA TEKAM, AGED ABOUT

NEAR PANI KI TANKI NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA CURRENT ADDRESS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROCESSUION OFFICER DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT MANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

21. DASRATH PRASAD S/O HARISH CHAND MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 6 PRATAP NAGAR NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

22. BADRI PRASAD MARKAM S/O HARISH CHAND Signature Not Verified MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O WARD SAN NO. 6 PRATAP NAGAR NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST (MADHYA PRADESH)

23. SMT. PRAYAGWATI BAI D/O HARISH CHAND MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 6 PRATAP NAGAR NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

24. BENIPRASAD S/O HARISH CHAND MARKAM,

PRATAP NAGAR NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

25. KAMTA PRASAD S/O HARISH CHAND MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 6 PRATAP NAGAR NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

26. KANAHIYA PRASAD S/O HARISH CHAND MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 6 PRATAP NAGAR NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

27. KAILASH PRASAD S/O HARISH CHAND MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 6 PRATAP NAGAR NAINPUR THANA AND TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

28. SHRI CHHIDDILAL (DIED) THROUGH LRS DEVI PRASAD S/O LATE CHHIDDILAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

29. VRINDA PRASAD S/O LATE CHHIDDILAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

30. SMT. TULSA BAI D/O LATE CHHIDDILAL W/O LATE CHOUDHARY LAL TEKAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified 31. SMT. INDRAMANI BAI D/O LATE CHHIDDILAL W/O MAHESH PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 62 SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR YEARS, R/O GRAM KARIMATI POST DHUTERA, Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

32. SMT. SHYAM MANI BAI D/O LATE CHHIDDILAL W/O BESHAKHU PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YE A R S , R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

33. SMT. SANTOSHI BAI D/O LATE CHHIDDILAL W/O GHASITA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O GRAM KEOLARI NEAR RANGE OFFICE THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

34. SMT. NANHIBAI D/O LATE CHHIDDILAL W/O RAM SINGH PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O GRAM KALAR BANKI THANA BANDOL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

35. SMT. GAURA BAI D/O LATE CHHIDDILAL W/O RAMDAYAL PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

36. SMT. BHANABAI (DIED) THROUGH LRS ASHOK KUMAR MARKAM S/O LATE BALCHAND MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O GRAM KANYA CHATRAWAS TEHSIL PARISAR KEOLARI TEHSIL AND THANA KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

37. RAJENDRA KUMAR MARKAM S/O LATE BALCHAND MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEONI THANA AND (MADHYA PRADESH)

38. SMT. USHA MARKAM W/O LATE AJAY MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O ITI ROAD SITAPAR GHANSOR TEHSIL GHANSOR DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

39. VINEET MARKAM S/O LATE AJAY MARKAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O ITI ROAD SITAPAR GHANSOR TEHSIL GHANSOR DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified SAN

40. SONA BAI W/O LATE RAMBHAROSE PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O NAINPUR NEAR Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR LOCOSHED TALAB TOLA THANA AND TEHSIL Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST NAINPUR DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

41. SMT. VIMLA BAI W/O LATE RAGHUVEER PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

42. PURSHOTTAM S/O LATE RAGHUVEER PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

43. SMT. ARUNABAI D/O LATE RAGHUVEER PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

44. DEVENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE RAGHUVEER PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

45. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE RAGHUVEER PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

46. DURGA BAI D/O LATE RAGHUVEER PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

47. SARASWATI BAI D/O LATE RAGHUVEER PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O GRAM SAREKHA (PANJARA) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

48. SHRI GOVIND PRASAD (DIED) THROUGH LRS SMT. SHYAMA BAI MARKAM W/O LATE GOVIND (HARGOVIND), AGED ABOUT 62 Y E A R S , R/O KHAIRI ROAD, KUMHARI MOHALLA KANHIWADA, THANA KANHIWADA Signature Not Verified TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH) SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST

49. MANGESH MARKAM S/O LATE GOVIND

(HARGOVIND), AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KHAIRI ROAD, KUMHARI MOHALLA KANHIWADA, THANA KANHIWADA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

50. MANOJ MARKAM S/O LATE GOVIND (HARGOVIND), AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O KHAIRI ROAD, KUMHARI MOHALLA KANHIWADA, THANA KANHIWADA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

51. SHIVNARAYAN S/O MANSA RAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O KHAIRI ROAD KUMHARI MOHALLA KANHIWADA THANA KANHIWADA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

52. SITARAM S/O MANSA RAM, AGED ABOUT 58 Y E A R S , R/O KHAIRI ROAD KUMHARI MOHALLA KANHIWADA THANA KANHIWADA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

53. SMT. CHAMARE (DIED) THROUGH LRS RADHEY SHYAM AGRAWAL S/O LATE MITTHANLAL PARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEAR S , R/O GRAM BHARKUNDI (NAGBABA GHANSOR) THANA AND TEHSIL KEOLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

54. SMT. KALABAI (DIED) THROUGH LRS GANGA RAM UIKEY S/O KISAN UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEAR S , R/O GEHRANALA (BITHLI) BHOMA THANA KANHIWADA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

55. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, SEONI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE)

Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:

ORDER This Miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved of order dated 9/09/2022 and

23/07/2022 Annexure P-1 passed by the learned II Civil Judge Class-I, District Seoni in RCS No. 4A/2013 rejecting an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. on the ground of limitation.

Placing reliance on the judgment of this High Court in State of M.P. Vs. Jay Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs. Surendra Singh and another 2004(1) MPLJ 114, it is pointed out that the Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao and others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and others, AIR 2002 SC 1201 has dealt with the aspect that what should be the approach of the courts in dealing with the application under Order 22, Rule 9 of C.P.C. It has held that

"The expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There can not be a strait- jacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the Court should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the Signature Not Verified SAN other hand, while considering the matter the Courts should not lose Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a

valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper-technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, Courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way."

It is also submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court has held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are to advance cause of justice and a party to the litigation should not be allowed to suffer on account of technicalities of the case, therefore, in the interest of justice, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. could be treated as an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement.

In the present case, it is pointed out that in one case, delay is only of one day, in the second case, there was a delay of about two months and in the third case, there is a delay of about one month and overlooking these aspects and without asking the party to file an application seeking condonation of delay, the impugned order has been passed which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the Signature Not Verified SAN judgment of the co-ordinate Bench and the judgment of the Supreme court, the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST impugned order cannot be given a seal of approval merely because the learned

court below was in hurry to decide the case. It being included in the list of 25 old cases, that cannot be an excuse for not following the judgment of the superior court i.e. the High Court and resorting to hypertechnicalities. The impugned order is quashed.

The application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. is treated as one read with Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. The delay in filing the application is condoned.

The legal heirs of respective defendant nos. 3, 13, 14, 15 and 27 are taken on record. The trial court to proceed in accordance with law.

In above terms, the petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.10.18 19:36:51 IST