Ramgopal vs Chandra Bhusan
2023 Latest Caselaw 9984 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9984 MP
Judgement Date : 3 July, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramgopal vs Chandra Bhusan on 3 July, 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 3 rd OF JULY, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 12 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
1. RAMGOPAL S/O SHRI SHIVNATH RAM
BRAMHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, CASTE
BRAMHAN OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. VILL AND
POST DHAWA TIWARIYAN THANA AND TEH.
HANUMANA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAM ABHILAKH S/O SHRI SHIVNATH RAM
BRAMHAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND SERVICE
VILL. AND POST DHAWA TIWARIYAN THNA AND
TAH. HANUMANA DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. MOHAN LAL S/O SHRI SHIVNATH RAM
BRAMHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND SERVICE
VILL. AND POST DHAWA TIWARIYAN THNA AND
TAH. HANUMANA DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

4. SHRIKRSHNA S/O SHRI SHIVNATH RAM
BRAMHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTRUST AND SERVICE
VILL. AND POST DHAWA TIWARIYAN THNA AND
TAH. HANUMANA DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI D.S. CHOUHAN-ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI ARUN KUMAR
SINGH- ADVOCATE)

AND
1. CHANDRA BHUSAN S/O SHRI RADHA CHARAN
BRAMHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE (POLICE DEPT.) R/O. VILL.
CHARAIYA POST OFFICE DHOUSAD THANA AND
TEH. HANUMANA (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 7/4/2023
12:19:29 PM
2
2. RAM BAHOR S/O SHRI CHHOTELAL BRAMHAN,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILL. AND POST DHAVA
TIWARIYAN THANA AND TAH. ANUMANA DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. BHAGWAN PRASAD S/O SHRI TIRATH PRASAD
BRAMHAN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O. VILL.
CHARAIYA POST OFFICE DHOUSAD THANA AND
TEH. HANUMANA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. KAMLESHWAR PRASAD (DIED ) THR. LRS.
TRIPURARI PRASAD S/O LATE SHRI
KAMLESHWAR PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. AND POST
DHAVA TIWARIYAN THANA AND TAH. ANUMANA
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. BRIJESH KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI KAMLESHWEAR
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILL. AND POST DHAVA
TIWARIYAN THANA AND TAH. ANUMANA DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. AKHILESH KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI
KAMLESHWAR PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. AND POST
DHAVA TIWARIYAN THANA AND TAH. ANUMANA
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. NILESH KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI KAMLESHWAR
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILL. AND POST DHAVA
TIWARIYAN THANA AND TAH. ANUMANA DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. SMT. SONIYA W/O LATE SHRI KAMLESHWAR
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WORK VILL. AND POST DHAVA
TIWARIYAN THANA AND TAH. ANUMANA DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. S M T. SAVITRI D/O LATE SHRI KAMLESHWAR
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WORK AYODHYA POST AND TAH KORAV
DISTT. ALLAHABD U.P. (UTTAR PRADESH)

10. SMT. KALAWATI D/O LATE SHRI KAMLESHWAR
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WORK SHANKARGARH THANA SOHAGI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 7/4/2023
12:19:29 PM
3
TEH. TEONTHAR DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

11. SUSHILA D/O LATE SHRI KAMLESHWAR PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WORK SHANKARGARH THANA SOHAGI TEH.
TEONTHAR DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

12. GOVIND S/O SHRI RAMDEO BRAMHAN, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS, VILL. AND POST DHAVA
TIWARIYAN THANA AND TAH. ANUMANA DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

13. VISHNU S/O SHRI RAMDEO BRAMHAN, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, VILL. AND POST DHAWA
TIWARIYAN THNA AND TAH. HANUMANA DISTT.
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

14. COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAMJI PANDEY-GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDEBNT
14/STATE )

This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

Heard on IA No.71/2019, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 434 days in filing the petition/MCC.

2. Supporting the averments of the application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not aware about the dismissal of second appeal on 13.09.2017. He submits that on 21.12.2018 the applicant 4

came to Jabalpur for the purpose of substituting legal heirs of respondent 4, who died on 27.09.2018, and contacted the counsel. After enquiry it was found that second appeal was listed on 13.09.2017, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, he applied for obtaining certified copy on 21.12.2018, which after preparation was received on 22.12.2018 and as there Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 7/4/2023 12:19:29 PM

was winter vacation from 22.12.2018 to 01.01.2019, therefore, application for restoration has been filed on 02.01.2019. With the aforesaid submissions learned counsel prays for condonation of delay in filing of the MCC.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.

4. Upon listing second appeal on 13.09.2017 the same was dismissed by passing the following order :

"None for the appellant even when the case is called in the second round.

On earlier occasions also i.e. 20.06.2017, 19.07.2017, 28.07.2017 none was present on behalf of the appellant.

It seems that with passage of time, appellant has lost interest in prosecuting this case.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution."

5. Perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shows that no explanation for non-appearance on 13.09.2017, as well as on previous three dates has been given in the application. Since after 13.09.2017 upto filing of the application for restoration on 02.01.2019 also, no explanation has been given in the application.

6. Apparently, the application is very sketchy and does not give the reasonable/proper explanation of delay of 434 days.

7. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 7/4/2023 12:19:29 PM

Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC 332.

8. As such, there being no reasonable explanation in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

9. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 7/4/2023 12:19:29 PM