Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lal Bihari Pandey vs Mstsayajunnisha on 1 August, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 01st OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE NO.2311 OF 2018
Between:-
1. LAL BIHARI PANDEY S/O
CHHOTERAM, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, VILL. BARAM BABA,
TEH. GOPAD BANAS, DISTRICT
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANJU PANDIT S/O LAL BIHARI
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT
MENTION BARAM BABA TAHSIL
GOPAD BANAS, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
..............APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI JAI SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. MST. SAYAJUNNISHA W/O LATE
RAYEES KHAN, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILL.
KOTARKALA,WARD NO. 4,
KOTWALI, SIDHI TEH. GOPAD
BANAS DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PARVEEN KHAN S/O LATE
RAYEES KHAN ARE MINOR
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER APPELLANT NO. 1,
2
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, VILLAGE
KOTARKALA, WARD NO. 4
KOTWALI, SIDHI TAHSIL
GOPAD BANAS, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. FIROZ KHAN S/O LATE RAYEES
KHAN ARE MINOR THROUGH
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
APPELLANT NO. 1, AGED ABOUT
7 YEARS, VILLAGE
KOTARKALA, WARD NO. 4
KOTWALI SIDHI, TAHSIL GOPAD
BANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SAGEER KHAN S/O LATE
RAYEES KHAN, ARE MINOR
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER APPELLANT NO. 1,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, VILLAGE
KOTARKALA, WARD NO. 4
KOTWALI SIDHI, TAHSIL GOPAD
BANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SALMA D/O LATE RAYEES KHAN
ARE INOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER
APPELLANT NO. 1, AGED ABOUT
3 YEARS, VILLAGE
KOTARKALA, WARD NO. 4
KOTWALI SIDHI, TAHSIL GOPAD
BANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SAMEENA D/O LATE RAYEES
KHAN ARE MINOR THROUGH
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
APPELLANT NO. 1, AGED ABOUT
1 YEARS, VILLAGE
KOTARKALA, WARD NO. 4
KOTWALI SIDHI, TAHSIL GOPAD
BANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3
7. NIYAZ AHMED S/O SHRI
ABDULMAJEED, AGED ABOUT 44
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
BRANCH MANAGER REWA
SIDHI GRAMIN BANK, BRANCH
BARAMBABA, P.S. KOTWALI
SIDHI TAHSIL GOPAD BANAS,
DISTT. SIDHI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
............RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PAWAN SAXENA - ADVOCATE )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This MCC coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.11141/2018, which is an application for
condonation of delay in filing of the MCC, which has been filed for
restoration of R.P. No.568/2015.
2. Registry has reported this MCC to be barred by 471 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel
submits that the applicants preferred review petition No.568/2015 being
aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2015 passed in M.A. No.1686/2015, but
review petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.04.2018 due
to inadvertent mistake in respect of noting of the case. It is submitted that
when the applicant contacted the counsel's office in the last week of
August, 2018, then he came to know about dismissal of the review
petition, thereafter, the counsel immediately applied for certified copy and
filed application for restoration of review petition. Learned counsel
submits that the sufficient cause mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation
Act should be interpreted liberally. With these submissions, he prayed for
allowing the application for restoration.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
5. Record of review petition shows that misc. appeal No.1686/2015
was filed by the applicants which was dismissed on merits vide order
dated 14.08.2015, in respect of which, review petition No.568/2015 was
filed, which upon listing on 15.12.2015, was adjourned due to prayer
made on behalf of the applicants with stipulation that no further
adjournment shall be granted. As none had appeared on next date i.e.
01.03.2016, the review petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
6. Upon filing MCC 1080/2016, the review petition was restored on
31.08.2016 and again upon listing of the review petition, none had
appeared for the applicants, therefore, again it was dismissed on
14.09.2016 for want of prosecution.
7. Again another MCC 2558/2016 was filed and the review petition
was restored on 03.10.2016 but again upon listing of the review petition,
none had appeared for the applicants, therefore, again it was dismissed on
28.11.2016 for want of prosecution.
8. Again another MCC 91/2017 was filed and the review petition was
restored on 03.02.2017 but again upon listing of the review petition, none
had appeared for the applicants, therefore, again it was dismissed on
19.04.2017 for want of prosecution.
9. Again instant MCC 2311/2018 has been filed for restoration of
R.P. No.568/2015 accompanying with an application under section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 471 days, without any
explanation of delay.
10. From bare perusal of the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, it is clear that no sufficient cause for restoration of R.P.
No.568/2015 has been shown and no explanation in respect of the
aforesaid continuous non-appearance of the counsel(s) has been given in
the application, which shows that anyhow the applicants want to keep the
R.P. No.568/2015 pending.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another (2008) 17 SCC 448, has
observed that the Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on
the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are
vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights". The aforesaid judgment
has further been followed recently in the case of Majji Sannemma @
Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC 332.
12. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of delay
in filing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the I.A
No.11141/2018 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
13. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.
14. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
anu
ANUPRIYA SHARMA
CHOUBEY
2023.08.04 10:32:53
+05'30'
