Mrigendra Singh @ Lalu vs Kamal Ahuja
2023 Latest Caselaw 932 MP

                                                               1
                             IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                 ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                                  FIRST APPEAL No. 991 of 2011

                            BETWEEN:-
                            MRAGENDRA SINGH @ LALU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                            S/O MANIRAJ SINGH, R/O VILL. KHAIRA POST AND P.S.
                            CHORHATTA, TAH. HUZUR, DISTT. REWA, M.P. NEAR
                            JAIN DAIRY AND CROCKERY, JAI SWEETS JUICE
                            CORNOR, VYANKAT BHALWAN BEHIND DISTRICT
                            COURT, REWA M.P.

                                                                                             .....APPELLANT
                            (BY SHRI S.P. MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            KAMAL AHUJA, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O OTANDAS, R/O
                            DWARIKA NAGAR TAH. HUZUR, DISTT. REWA, M.P.

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENT
                            (NONE)

                                  T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                            following:
                                                                ORDER

Heard on I.A. No. 13021/2011, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1528 days.

2. Condonation of delay has been sought with the contentions that the appellant is living too far from Rewa city. He lives in remote area of Rewa District and he came to know about the impugned judgment and decree when he wrote a letter to his counsel to know about the status of his case in the month of June 2011. As no response was received from his counsel, therefore, the appellant went to Rewa on 23.06.2011 and contacted the office of his counsel Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 1/17/2023 12:11:47 PM

and then he came to know about decision of his case on 19.05.2007. It is further contended that after applying for the certified copy, the same was received on 30.06.2011, thereafter the appellant contacted to the counsel after arranging the funds for filing the first appeal on 20.10.2011 then the appeal was drafted and was filed before the Court.

3. On the basis of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, liberal view should be taken and delay should be condoned.

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

5. From bare perusal of the record, it is clear that the first appeal has

been filed on 24.10.2011 whereas the certified copy of the impugned judgment & decree dated 19.05.2007 was applied on 23.06.2011, which after preparation was delivered on 30.06.2011. Nothing has been mentioned in the application as to why after 30.06.2011, the appellant contacted to the counsel on 20.10.2011 i.e. after about three and half months. Further, in the application, nothing has been mentioned, as to why the appellant could not remain in touch with the counsel and what was the name of counsel and when he met to the counsel. There is no documentary evidence also available on record in support of the application. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is distance of about 25 Kms. from the village of appellant to Rewa District.

6. It is also apparent from the record that the appellant has been negligent in prosecuting the case/appeal. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 1/17/2023 12:11:47 PM

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 Srivedi and Others AIR 2022 SC 332.

8. Resultantly, the I.A. No. 13021/2011 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Subsequently, the first appeal is also dismissed.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Pallavi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 1/17/2023 12:11:47 PM