Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devilal vs Malu Singh Pusam on 20 November, 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 20 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2515 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DEVILAL S/O MAKARANLAL BOPCHE, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE RAMPURI
POLICE STATION S. BAMHANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SURDEEP KHAMPARIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MALU SINGH PUSAM S/O ATAR SINGH PUSAM,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KOHKA
MADHIYARAS POLICE STATION TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT DINDORI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ASHISH SONI S/O K.K. SONI, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KOHKA MADHIYARAS P.S.
AND DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIM ITED BRANCH OFFICE 84 ADARSH NAGAR,
NARMADA ROAD NEAR MITTAL GAS AGENCY
JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on IA No.16846/2023, which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 11/21/2023
5:46:47 PM
2. Registry has reported this MCC to be barred by 1988 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application learned counsel
submits that against the impugned award dtd. 04.09.2017, M.A. No.737/2018
was filed with some delay. As the matter was sent by local counsel and the
counsel appearing in the High Court was not in contact of the client, therefore,
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be filed and the
requisite court fees of Rs.1250/- was also not deposited within time.
Resultantly, the Misc. Appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2018 due to non
compliance of common conditional order dtd. 09.04.2018. Learned counsel
further submits that the applicant is poor person and could not arrange the court
fees within the stipulated period and thereafter the lockdown was enforced due
to covid-19 and the applicant faced great financial crisis. He further submits that
after a long lapse of time applicant contacted to the counsel and came to know
that his appeal has been dismissed under common conditional order, thereafter
he arranged the court fees and contacted the counsel, who advised to file
application for restoration of the misc. appeal.
4. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays for
condonation of delay in filing of the MCC with the submissions that 'sufficient
cause' mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be considered
liberally.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record
available.
6. From the aforesaid facts stated in the order, it is clear that when the
misc. appeal was filed, the counsel for the applicant was aware that the appeal is
beyond time, therefore, the application is required to be filed for condonation of
Signature Not Verified
delay in filing of the misc. appeal. Further according to the valuation mentioned
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 11/21/2023
5:46:47 PM
in the misc. appeal, the court fees of Rs.1250/- is required to be deposited was
also in the knowledge of the counsel and the applicant. As to why at the relevant
point of time the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed
and court fees of Rs.1250/- was not paid, has not been mentioned in the
application. The Misc. appeal appears to have been dismissed on 20.06.2018
for want of compliance of common conditional order dtd. 09.04.2018. As to
why the application for restoration of misc. appeal was not filed immediately
after dismissal of the misc. appeal, has not been mentioned in the application. It
is also well known fact that for restoration of the misc. appeal/any other matter,
application for restoration can be filed by the counsel even without affidavit of
the concerning party and 'Vakalatnama'. Even the certified copy of the order
dismissing the misc. appeal/any other matter, is not required to be filed along
with the application for restoration, which can be filed later on.
7. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion there is no
sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing of the MCC. Even otherwise
the application for condonation of delay is very sketchy and does not give any
reasonable explanation about the delay of 1988 days.
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 1988
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 11/21/2023
5:46:47 PM
days delay in filing of the application for restoration of miscellaneous appeal
No.737/2018, the I.A No.16846/2023 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 11/21/2023
5:46:47 PM
