Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raman Patel vs Rajesh Nanda on 29 November, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2555 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAMAN PATEL S/O RAJESH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE SILAGI
POLICE STATION BRAMHANI BANJAR TEHSIL & DISTT.
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SURDEEP KHAMPARIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJESH NANDA S/O SHAMBHU PRASAD NANDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O INDRAJI WARD
MANDLA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RANJEET PATEL S/O L.L. PATEL, AGED ABOUT 35
YEAR S , R/O VILLAGE SIMRAHA POST INDRI
TEHSIL NAINPUR DISTRICT, MANDLA, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. OFFICE ASTA
HOSTEL FIRST FLOOR CIVIL LINES MANDLA
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT VEHICLE INSURER
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on IA No.17095/2023, which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of MCC.
2. Registry has reported this MCC to be barred by 1834 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that the misc. appeal No.4176/2018 was dismissed under
common conditional order because the applicant being poor person could not
arrange the court fees within the stipulated period and thereafter covid-19 was
enforced. Further the applicant remained busy because of financial problems in
the family and after a long lapse of time contacted to the counsel, who informed
that his case was dismissed under common conditional order. Thereafter, he
arranged the deficit court fees and contacted to the counsel, who advised to file
the application for restoration of the misc. appeal. The applicant being illiterate
person was not having knowledge about the law.
4. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays for
condonation of delay in filing of the MCC with the further 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.
6. Record of misc. appeal shows that first time the case was listed under
common orders on 12.09.2018, then under common conditional order on
29.10.2018 and when the orders were not complied, the misc. appeal was
dismissed on 03.01.2019, which was filed against the award dtd. 27.03.2018.
7. Perusal of application shows that no reasonable or proper explanation
of delay in filing of the MCC has been given.
8 . 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 1834 days.
9. 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.
10. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of 1834
days delay in filing of the application for restoration of miscellaneous appeal
No.4176/2018, the I.A No.17095/2023 deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
11. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
