Chandrabali Singh Gond vs Raju Singh Gond
2022 Latest Caselaw 12367 MP

                                                         1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
                                              ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                           MISC. PETITION No. 3768 of 2022

                                BETWEEN:-
                          1.    CHANDRABALI SINGH GOND S/O LATE
                                BHAGIRATHI SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT 40
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE
                                KHANUA NAYA TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT
                                SINGROULI (MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    CHHOTA SINGH GOND S/O LATE BHAGIRATHI
                                SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE KHANUA
                                NAYA TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT SINGRAULI
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    BUKULI SINGH GOND W/O LATE BHAGIRATHI
                                SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE
                                KHANUA NAYA TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT
                                SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                                (BY SHRI A.P. SHAH, ADVOCATE )

                                AND
                          1.    RAJU SINGH GOND S/O LATE RANGDEV SINGH
                                GOND, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                HOUSE WORK R/O VILLAGE KHANUA NAYA
                                TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT SINGROULI (MP) AT
                                VPRESENT R/O VILLAGE BENDO TEHSIL
                                KHUSMI POLICE STATION KHUSMI DISTRICT
                                SIDHI (MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                THE    COLLECTOR     SINGRAULI DISTRICT
                                SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                (BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHAM
THAKKER
Signing time: 9/20/2022
11:42:36 AM
                                                               2
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

This petition has been filed by the defendant/ petitioner assailing the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the lower Appellate Court.

The counsel contends that the plaintiff/ respondent herein had field a suit which was dismissed by the judgment of trial Court dated 31.10.2018. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff /respondent filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Authority on 01.02.2019 along with an application for condonation for delay. In the application for condonation of delay it was asserted by the plaintiff that as the plaintiff was unwell thus, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It was further stated that

the husband of the plaintiff then obtained a certified copy on 13.11.2018, then the appeal was filed. The trial Court while entertaining the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act has condoned the delay and called for the records of the trial Court.

Learned counsel submits that day to day delay has not been explained in the application for condonation and even the Medical Certificate which was filed in support of the application for condonation of delay did not reflect as to in which hospital the plaintiff was admitted and as on which date she was discharged from such hospital.

Learned counsel while disputing the Medical Certificate produced by plaintiff in support of the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act submits the delay was not satisfactorily explained thus, the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act ought to have been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. However, the lower Appellate Court without considering the genuineness of the Medical Certificate Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 9/20/2022 11:42:36 AM

filed along with the application for condonation of delay has proceeded to allow the same while condoning the delay. Thus, the order passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner on admission. A perusal of the order impugned reflect that the Court below while taking into consideration, the application moved by the plaintiff/ appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act considered the Medical Certificate produced along with the application for condonation of delay in which it was certified by the doctor that the plaintiff was under treatment from 27.10.2018 till 08.01.2009 and thus, the Court below has condoned the delay occasioned in filing of the appeal.

The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 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 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.

Thus, as per law laid down by the Apex Court, the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties unless the party has resorted to dilatory tactics. In the present case along with the application for condonation Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 9/20/2022 11:42:36 AM

of delay, the plaintiff produced a medical certificate and, therefore, the delay of approximately of 28 days in filing of appeal, in the considered view of this Court, was not deliberate in view of the medical certificate which has been duly considered by the lower Appellate Court.

Accordingly, the impugned order does not suffer from infirmity or perversity, hence, the present petition being devoid of merits, deserve to be and accordingly dismissed.

(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE Shub

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 9/20/2022 11:42:36 AM