Heeralal vs Amrat Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 19963 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Heeralal vs Amrat Singh 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. 2549 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    HEERALAL S/O SHOBHARAM YADAV, AGED
                                 ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
                                 VILLAGE BAHELIYA TOLA, MALI MOHGAON,
                                 POLICE STATION MAHARAJPUR, TEHSIL AND
                                 DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    PREMVATI BAI W/O HEERALAL, AGED ABOUT 44
                                 YEAR S , R/O VILLAGE BAHELIYA TOLA MALI
                                 MOHGAON POLICE STATION MAHARAJPUR
                                 TEHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANTS
                           (BY SHRI SURDEEP KHAMPARIYA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    AMRAT SINGH S/O VIKRAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT
                                 30 YEARS, R/O MALI MOHGAON POLICE STATION
                                 MAHARAJPUR TEHISL AND DISTRICT MANDLA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    RAM PRASAD S/O PUNNULAL CHAKRAVARTI,
                                 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MAHARAJPUR
                                 POLICE STATION MAHARAJPUR TEHSIL AND
                                 DISTRICT   MANDLA  (MADHYA  PRADESH)
                                 (VEHICLE OWNER)

                           3.    NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                 THROUGH    BRANCH   OFFICE ABOVE ASTHA
                                 HOTEL CIVIL LINE MANDLA TEHSIL AND
                                 DISTRICT   MANDLA   (MADHYA    PRADESH)
                                 (INSURANCE COMPANY)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS


                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 11/30/2023
6:08:59 PM
                                                              2
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Heard on IA No.17065/2023, 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 1990 days.

3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the misc. appeal No.734/2018 was dismissed under common conditional order because the applicants being poor persons could not arrange the court fees within the stipulated period and thereafter covid-19 was enforced. Further the applicants remained busy because of financial

problems in the family and after a long lapse of time contacted to the counsel, who informed that their case was dismissed under common conditional order. Thereafter, they arranged the deficit court fees and contacted to the counsel, who advised to file the application for restoration of the misc. appeal. The applicants being illiterate persons were 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 applicants and perused the record.

6. Record of misc. appeal shows that first time the case was listed under common orders on 14.02.2018, then under common conditional order on 09.04.2018 and when the orders were not complied, the misc. appeal was dismissed on 30.06.2018, which was filed against the award dtd. 24.06.2017.

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 1990 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 1990 days delay in filing of the application for restoration of miscellaneous appeal No.734/2018, the I.A No.17065/2023 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