Mohan Lal vs Young Mans Christian Association
2023 Latest Caselaw 9803 MP

                                                                1
                           IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                   ON THE 28 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                              REVIEW PETITION No. 633 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MOHAN LAL S/O LATE GANESHI, AGED ABOUT 74
                          YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O YMCA QUEENS ROAD
                          CANTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI K.S. JHA, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          YOUNG MANS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION THROUGH
                          GENERAL SECRETARY RAMESH PAUL S/O LATE B. LAL
                          AGE 55 YEARS, R/O 2, QUEENS ROAD, CANTT.
                          JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT


                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                                    ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.9073/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the review petition.

2. Registry has reported this review petition to be barred by 203 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19/03/2021 affirming the judgment and decree dated 24/12/2019, whereby suit for eviction filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed on the ground under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The petitioner is about 76 years and Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:51:27 PM

is suffering from various diseases and is undergoing treatment. As such, he could not pursue his case in the last 6 months and came to know about passing of the impugned order dated 28/10/2022 only on 29/05/2023 when he received a notice of contempt. As such, delay of 203 days has been prayed to be condoned.

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

5. The second appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree of eviction passed on the ground of bonafide requirement and the counsel Shri Rakesh Pandey appearing for the petitioner after arguments at length, himself submitted that he is ready to withdraw the second appeal and looking to the age

of the petitioner and that the petitioner was employee of the respondent/plaintiff, 6 months time on the request of the counsel for the petitioner was granted, whereby the petitioner was to vacate the premises on or before 30/04/2023.

6. In the application, nothing has been said about the action taken by duly engaged counsel Shri Rakesh Pandey, as to why he did not inform to the petitioner. In fact nothing has been said in the application that the counsel did not inform the petitioner about passing of the order in SA No.881/2021 on 28/10/2022. Apparently, no reasonable explanation of delay of 203 days has also been given in the application.

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 Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC 332.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:51:27 PM

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, this review petition is also dismissed.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:51:27 PM