Pooranlal Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12873 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 3055 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          POORANLAL PRAJAPATI S/O MANIK PRAJAPATI, AGED
                          ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                          NEAR SARANI DARWAZA CHHATARPUR DISTRICT
                          CHHATARPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI ANOOP SAXENA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                COLLECTOR      CHHATARPUR       DISTRICT
                                CHHATARPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DHANIRAM KACHHI S/O NANAI KACHHI R/O
                                WARD NO. 8, FRANGI PCCHAD ROAD,
                                CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SMT. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )

                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Heard on I.A No.15833/2022, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the MCC/application for restoration of second appeal no.535/2009.

2. Registry has reported this MCC to be barred by 1891 days.

3. Supporting the averments made in the application learned counsel for the applicant submits that the counsel who filed the second appeal assured the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 8/11/2023 1:19:02 PM

applicant that he will intimate about the progress of the second appeal. The applicant is a poor person and is residing in District Chhatarpur which is about 300 km far from Jabalpur. He also lost contact number and address of the earlier counsel and despite many efforts, he could not get the status of the case. It is submitted that when the applicant could not contact the earlier counsel then he came to Jabalpur on 15.12.2022 and got knowledge of dismissal of the second appeal for want of prosecution on 11.09.2017. He further submits that sufficient cause has been shown in the application for condonation of delay which should be construed liberally. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and for

condonation of delay.

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

5. Record of second appeal no.535/2009 shows that after filing of the same on 18.04.2009, it remained pending due to making of prayers for adjournments to argue the case on admission upto 11.04.2017. Thereafter, on 17.05.2017, 04.07.2017, 26.07.2017 and 11.09.2017 none had appeared for the appellant, resultantly this Court dismissed the second appeal for want of prosecution.

6. Record of second appeal further shows that the suit was filed by the applicant/appellant Pooranlal for declaration of title and permanent injunction claiming himself to be owner/Bhoomiswami of the land in question on the basis of registered sale deed dated 07.06.1985 executed by defendant 2-Dhaniram in favour of the applicant/appellant-Pooranlal. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff has failed to prove any grant of Patta by the State Government in favour of defendant 2-Dhaniram. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed with the observation that in absence of any Patta in favour of Dhaniram, the sale deed executed by him in favour of the applicant/appellant does not confer any title. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 8/11/2023 1:19:02 PM

7. The overall conduct of the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has been just to get adjourned hearing of the second appeal. Further, after dismissal of the second appeal on 11.09.2017, why the applicant/appellant did not make any contact to the counsel within the reasonable time, has not been mentioned. Apparently, the applicant/appellant does not know whereabouts of the counsel, who filed the second appeal which is not believable. Further, there is no reasonable or proper explanation of delay of 1891 days in filing of the MCC.

8. 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.

9. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of 1891 days delay in filing of the application for restoration of second appeal, the I.A No.15833/2022 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

10. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 8/11/2023 1:19:02 PM