Union Of India vs Smt. Bacchi Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 12656 MP

                                                          1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                              ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                          MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2597 of 2017

                         BETWEEN:-
                         UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL
                         RAILWAY    CHURCH      GATE   MUMBAI    CST
                         (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                                                      .....APPLICANT
                         (BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    SMT. BACCHI BAI W/O LATE SHRI BANSILA R/O
                               SURAWAT   KA    KHEDA,   BAGHUNIYA    PS
                               SHAYAMGARH DISTT. MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    SARDAR S/O LATE BANSILAL SURAWAT KA
                               KHEDA BAGHUNIYA, SHAYAMGARH, MANDSAUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    RAMESH S/O LATE BANSILAL R/O SURAWAT KA
                               KHEDA BAGHUNIYA, SHAYAMGARH, MANDSAUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    MOHAN S/O LATE BANSILAL R/O SURAWAT KA
                               KHEDA BAGHUNIYA, SHAYAMGARH, MANDSAUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    KU. RADHA BAI S/O LATE             BANSILAL R/O
                               SURAWAT   KA     KHEDA              BAGHUNIYA,
                               SHAYAMGARH, MANDSAUR, 70

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS


                               This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                         following:
Signature Not Verified
                                                           ORDER

Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 8/8/2023 6:33:01 PM

Heard on IA No.12798/2017, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the MCC.

2. Registry has reported this MCC to be barred by 2830 days.

3. Supporting the averments made in the application learned counsel submits that the applicant/Department challenged the award dated 16.04.2009 passed by the RCT by filing MA No.3213/2009 which was dismissed due to non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 02.12.2009. The duly engaged counsel was no more on the panel of the applicant/Department and he has not informed the Department about dismissal of MA No.3213/2009. When the respondents filed execution application before the RCT, Bhopal for recovering

the awarded amount, then only the applicant/Department came to know about dismissal of the MA No.3213/2009. After receiving the notices of execution case, the applicant/Department enquired from the earlier counsel about the status of the case but he was not aware about the status of the case and thereafter, he informed about the dismissal of the case in last week of June, 2017. Thereafter, the applicant/Department contacted newly empanelled counsel at Jabalpur on 13.08.2017 and verified the status of the case and thereafter, drafted the application which was sent for the approval and after approval from the concerned department, the MCC was filed. He submits that in view of the aforesaid, delay occurred in filing application for restoration, being based on bonafides of the applicant, deserves to be condoned. He further submits that the 'sufficient cause' mentioned in sec. 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the application for condonation of delay.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

Signature Not Verified

5. From perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it is Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 8/8/2023 6:33:01 PM

clear that the applicant has not even mentioned the names of previous and later counsel to whom contact was made. It has also not been mentioned in the application as to when it came to know about dismissal of misc. appeal. It is clear that the application is very sketchy and does not give reasonable or proper explanation of delay of 2830 days. The affidavit is in the name of officer of the applicant but language of the affidavit shows that it has been given by some advocate, which cannot be considered to be an affidavit in support of the application.

6. 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.

7. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of 2830 days delay in filing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the IA No.12798/2017 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

8. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.

9. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 8/8/2023 6:33:01 PM