Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hiralal Patel vs Somkar on 20 April, 2023
Author: Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 20 th OF APRIL, 2023
CIVIL REVISION No. 509 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. HIRALAL PATEL S/O SHRI GAURISHANKAR
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL
SHAHPURA POLICE STATION SHAHPURA
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHESHNARAYAN PATEL S/O SHRI HIRALAL
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL
SHAHPURA P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI J.P. AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAVINDRA K.
GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SOMKAR S/O SHRI DORILAL, AGED ABOUT 42
YE A R S , VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL SHAHPURA
POLICE STATION SHAHPURA DISTRICT
JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. TEJILAL S/O SHRI GOPAL PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
57 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL
SHAHPURA P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. UJYAR S/O SHRI RAMCHARAN, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL SHAHPURA
P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ANANDI S/O SHRI RAMCHARAN, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL SHAHPURA
P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 21-Apr-23
6:57:40 PM
2
5. LAXMAN S/O SHRI ROHNI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL
SHAHPURA P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BHARAT S/O SHRI ROHNI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL
SHAHPURA P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MANGO BAI D/O SHRI ROHNI PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL
SHAHPURA P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. MUKESH S/O SHRI DORILAL, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DOBHI TEHSIL SHAHPURA
P.S. SHAHPURA DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS, THOUGH SERVED)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
As per Office report, the petition is time barred by 1230 days.
Heard on I.A. No.10822/2022, which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1230 days in filing of the Civil
Revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not
aware about the impugned order, dated 28.01.2019 passed by the 11th
Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. He further submits that after dismissal of the
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal, the warrant of arrest was issued against the
petitioners by the executing Court to send them to civil prison for a period of 7
days. Then, the petitioners came to know about the dismissal of the Appeal.
Thereafter, petitioners applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 21-Apr-23
6:57:40 PM
30.08.2022 and after obtaining the certified copy on 06.09.2022, petitioners
preferred the present petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the delay
caused in filing the petition is bona fide and prays to condone the same.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagmal &
Others Vs. Kunwar Lal&Others, ILR (2010) MP 2252.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioners and gone through the above mentioned citation. It appears that the
case of Bhagmal & Others (supra), upon which reliance is placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners relates to order passed under Order IX Rule
13 of the C.P.C. to set-aside an ex-parte decree. And in that case, Article 123
of the Limitation Act will be applied. According to Article 123, limitation period
shall begin to run from the date of the decree or where the summons or notice
was not duly served, then period begins to run, when the petitioners had
knowledge of the decree.
Whereas, facts of the present case in hand are different from the facts of
Bhagmal & Others (supra), therefore, no assistance is available to the
petitioner from the above citation.
In the present case, Article 131 of Limitation Act will be applicable.
Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for 90 days time for filing such
an application and time from which period begins to run is the date of the
decree or order or sentence sought to be revised.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioners were the appellants in the
earlier round of litigation, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they had no
knowledge regarding the impugned order.
Delay in filing the present petition is 1230 days, which is inordinate and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 21-Apr-23
6:57:40 PM
sufficient reason for 1230 days delay has not been explained.
In the case of Mahabir Singh vs. Subhash, (2008) 1 SCC 358,
Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-9 has held as under :-
“9. In terms of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, no
court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or application if the
same has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation. The High
Court could not have ignored the said jurisdictional fact.â€
(Emphasis supplied)
As per above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the delay in
filing the petition is not liable to be condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No.10822/2022 is dismissed and consequently review
petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
R
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 21-Apr-23
6:57:40 PM
