Smt. Kamla Bai vs Amar Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16553 MP

                                                         1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                             ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                           SECOND APPEAL No. 2272 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    SMT. KAMLA BAI Wd/O AJAB SINGH, AGED
                                ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O BARJA TEHSIL TIMRANI,
                                DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    GOLU PRASAD S/O LATE AJAB SINGH RAJPUT,
                                AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O BARJA TEHSIL
                                TIMRANI DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    NARSINNGH S/O LATE AJAB SINGH RAJPUT,
                                AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O BARJA TEHSIL
                                TIMRANI DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    PREMLATA BAI D/O LATE AJAB SINGH RAJPUT,
                                AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O BARJA TEHSIL
                                TIMRANI DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    NIRBHAY SINGH S/O RAM NARAYAN, AGED
                                ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHINDGAWMEL
                                TEHSIL TIMRANI DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI K.S. RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    AMAR SINGH S/O RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 45
                                YEAR S , R/O VILLAGE CHIDGAWAMEL TEHSIL
                                TIMRANI DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
                                HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 10/9/2023
3:43:57 PM
                                                              2
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.15343/2023, which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

2. The Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by 2188 days.

3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree was passed by first appellate Court on 24.6.2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2000 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Harda in Civil Suit No.23A/1994 whereby suit for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1- Amar Singh in respect of land khasra No.218/2 area 12 dismil situated in village

Chhindgaonmel, Tahsil Timrani, District Harda was decreed.

4. Learned counsel submits that the appellants being uneducated and rustic villagers were not aware about the remedy of filing second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and they remained under honest belief that no further remedy is available to them hence the appeal could not be filed and due to their poverty they could not get the appropriate legal advice regarding the remedies available to them and only upon issuing of notice in execution proceedings, the appellants contacted their local counsel, who apprise them about remedy of filing second appeal.

5. With the aforesaid submissions learned counsel for appellants submits that the delay occurred in filing of second appeal being based on bonafides and ignorance of law, deserves to be condoned considering the sufficient cause mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act liberally,

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

7. The suit in question for restoration of possession was filed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 10/9/2023 3:43:57 PM

plaintiff/respondent No.1 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 2.6.1989 executed by its owner Bapu Singh in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff and as against rights of the plaintiff, the defendants were claiming themselves to be owner and in possession on the basis of an agreement of sale executed by Bapu Singh. Copy of judgment shows that civil suit was also filed by the defendants, which was dismissed as withdrawn. As such, it can very well be presumed that the appellants/defendants were well aware about their rights and the legal proceedings.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the ground for condonation of delay regarding no knowledge of the remedy available against the impugned judgment and decree cannot be said to be bonafide. It is also well settled that ignorance of law is no excuse.

9. Upon perusal of contents of the entire application, in my considered opinion, the appellants have not been able to show the sufficient cause for not filing the second appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

10. 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.

11. Accordingly, I.A No.15343/2023 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the second appeal is also dismissed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 10/9/2023 3:43:57 PM

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE irfan

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 10/9/2023 3:43:57 PM