Madhya Pradesh High Court

Baldvan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2023

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

1 S.A. No.1823/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1823 of 2019
BETWEEN:-

BALDVAN SINGH S/O SHRI GHUMAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE PAHARGUVAN
POST NETNA TEHSIL KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RATAN SINGH S/O HARI SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
PAHARGUVAN POST NETNA TEHSIL
KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. SUKH SINGH S/O HARI SINGH, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O VILLAGE PAHARGUVAN POST NETNA
TEHSIL KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

4. GULAB SINGH S/O HARI SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2 S.A. No.1823/2019

AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
PAHARGUVAN POST NETNA TEHSIL
KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

5. BADI BINNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

(a) KOMA SINGH S/O KALYAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RICHHAI
TEH. BANDA POST BHAGARDA P.S BAHROL,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

(b). MANGAL SINGH S/O KALYAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE RICHHAI TEH.
BANDA POST BHAGARDA P.S BAHROL,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

(c). RAJENDRA SINGH S/O KALYAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
RICHHAI TEH. BANDA POST BHAGARDA P.S
BAHROL, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

(d). LAKHAN SINGH S/O KALYAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE RICHHAI TEH.
BANDA POST BHAGARDA P.S BAHROL,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

(e). KALYAN SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RICHHAL
TEH. BANDA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

(f). SAHODRA BAI D/O KALYAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANDRI
TEH. KHURAI DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
3 S.A. No.1823/2019

PRADESH)

6. PREM BAI W/O MULU SINGH, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O BARA ROAD BANDA TEH. BANDA,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. HALKI BINNA W/O PHOOL SINGH LODHI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE NETNA TEH.
KHURAI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. PAPIYA GHOSE - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE,
NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 )
.........................................................................................................

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

following:

ORDER

1. On a call given by the State Bar Council of M.P. the lawyers are

abstaining from work in spite of letter dated 22.3.2023, issued by the

Bar Council of India thereby requesting the State Bar Council of M.P. to

follow the various dictums passed by the Supreme Court from time to

time in respect of strike.

2. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2023

passed In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of

M.P. & others (W.P. No.7295/2023) has issued following directions:

(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh are hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective courts forthwith;

(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;

(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these directions and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;

(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the court;

(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates who have prevented other advocates from entering the court premises or from conducting their cases in the court;

(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being debarred from practice.

3. In spite of that Lawyers are abstaining from court work.

4. Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to

issue notice to counsels for the appellant to show cause as to why

contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for violating the

order dated 24.03.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P and Others (supra).

5. Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same.

6. Heard on I.A. No.7831/2019, an application under Section 5 of

Limitation Act.

7. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and

decree dated 31.01.2012.

8. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under:

"IN THE HIGHT COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Second Appeal No.1823/2019

APPELLANT : Baldvan Defendant

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS : State of M.P. and others Plaintiffs

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMIATATION ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

The appellant named above begs to submit as under:-

1. That, the appellant has filed the aforesaid Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court.

2. That, the appellant/defendant has a very good case on merit and he hopes to succeed in it. Facts and grounds are already mentioned in the memo of Second Appeal, which may be read as part of this application.

3. That, the instant Second Appeal is barred by few years, because the appellant has no knowledge about the provisions of appeal and when the respondents No.2 to 4 file the execution proceedings in year 2018 and when the notice has been received by the appellant he has filed the reply in the

execution proceedings and thereafter he came to Jabalpur for taking legal advise on this matter dated 22/6/2019 and after taking the legal advise, he arranged the money and on 26/6/2019 he came to Jabalpur from Sagar for filing the present appeal.

4. That, in case of State of Haryana Vs. Gandharvamani & others (1996) 3 SCC 132- held that a lenient view should be taken by the authorities while considering the application for condonation of delay and as his possible, the matter should be decided on merits.

5. That, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and unintentional and due to lack of knowledge, the delay has been caused in filing the appeal, which is liable to be condoned.

An Affidavit in support is filed herewith.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in filing the aforesaid appeal, in the interest of justice.

                  JABALPUR        (PRAMOD SINGH TOMAR)
                  DATED:27/6/2019 ADVOCATE FOR
                                   APPELLANTS"

9. The basic reason assigned by the appellant for not filing an appeal

within a period of limitation is that the appellant was not aware of the

provisions of appeal. It is well established principle of law that mistake

of fact is pardonable but the mistake of law is not pardonable. The

appellant himself has admitted in application for condonation of delay

that the appeal is barred by few years. It is true that the application for

condonation of delay must be considered with a lenient view but at the

same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that after the period of

limitation is over, right is created in favour of the opposite party. In the

present appeal, the impugned judgment was passed on 31.01.2012,

whereas this appeal has been filed on 27.06.2019 i.e. after 7 and 1/2

years. From the record of the Appellate Court, it is clear that the

appellant was being represented by various counsels. Thus, it is clear

that the stand taken by the appellant that he was not having knowledge

about the provision of appeal, is self imaginary and is false even to the

knowledge of the appellant.