Ratibai D/O Late Shri Chinkha ... vs Ganpat
2023 Latest Caselaw 17809 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 26 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                                SECOND APPEAL No. 47 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    RATIBAI D/O LATE SHRI CHINKHA KACHI W/O
                                 ANANDI KACHI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE MAVAI
                                 DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    RAJKUMARI D/O LATE SHRI CHINKHA KACHI
                                 W/O MOHAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE MAVAI,
                                 DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI ARVIND SONI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    GANPAT S/O MATHULA KACHI, AGED ABOUT 55
                                 YEARS, VILLAGE ASTUN TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                 TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
                                 COLLECTOR,          TIKAMGARH DISTRICT
                                 TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI REZI MATHAI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard on I.A No.163 of 2023 which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the second appeal.

2. Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by 2551 days.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 10/27/2023 10:31:17 AM

3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2015 on 29.10.2015 and received it on 31.10.2015 and she engaged local counsel to prefer appeal before Hon'ble High Court and when the appellant asked the counsel about progress of the second appeal, he replied that the case is pending before the High Court. It is submitted that appellants are illiterate ladies and residing in remote area. It is also submitted that in the year 2017, she became ill and her treatment was going on, therefore, she could not contact her counsel for a period of more than three years, thereafter in the month of March, 2020 she again contacted to her counsel and asked about the

case but the counsel could not reply satisfactorily and returned the file. Thereafter, lock down was declared by the Government and in the month of December 2022, she managed the funds for preferring the appeal before the High Court and contacted to the counsel for filing the appeal, who drafted the appeal and filed before this Court. Learned counsel also submits that sufficient cause mentioned in the application should be considered liberally and the delay occurred in filing of the second appeal being based on bonafides of the appellants, the appeal should be treated to be within limitation.

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

5. The certified copy which has been placed before this Court was applied for on 29.10.2015 and delivered to the appellants on 31.10.2015. After receipt of certified copy, which counsel was engaged by the appellants, is not mentioned in the application. It is also not mentioned that when she asked her counsel with regard to filing of the appeal and in case of illness of one of the appellants, why the other appellant did not take any interest in making contact to the counsel in filing of the appeal before the Court. Perusal of the application shows that just Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 10/27/2023 10:31:17 AM

with a view to file second appeal before this Court, concocted averments have been made in the application and no proper/ reasonable explanation has been given. Apparently, the application is very sketchy and does not give reasonable/proper explanation of delay of 2551 days in filing of the second appeal.

6. 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.

7. Accordingly, I.A No.163 of 2023 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the second appeal is also dismissed.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 10/27/2023 10:31:17 AM