Rambabu vs Gumna
2023 Latest Caselaw 17810 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. 2505 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1. RAMBABU S/O MUNNALAL AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT
                           37    YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                           VILLAGE BERKHEDI TADA TEHSIL BINA DISTRICT
                           SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2. RAJABABU S/O RAMESH AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 34
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
                           BERKHEDI TADA TEHSIL BINA DISTRICT SAGAR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA-ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    GUMNA S/O SHRI BALLA RAJPUT (BANJARA),
                                 AGED    ABOUT    73   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE BERKHEDI TADA
                                 TEHSIL BINA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR SAGAR
                                 DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT 1)

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

Heard on IA No.16662/2023, 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 1611 days. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 10/27/2023 5:28:23 PM

3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel submits that first appellate court dismissed their appeal vide judgment and decree dtd. 11.02.2019. It is contended that the appellants are resident of Tahsil Beena and their counsel informed that he will take care of the case and will inform them time to time about the status of the case. It is mentioned in the application that many times the appellants made phone calls to the counsel but were not attended by him and during the year 2020-21 there was pandemic of Covid-19, due to which no personal contact could be made. Learned counsel submits that the counsel engaged before the first appellate court did not inform about the final decision given in their civil appeal and as for a long period no

communication was made by the counsel, therefore, the appellant 1 visited the office of the counsel at Sagar on 07.08.2023 and he came to know that the counsel has expired way back. Immediately thereafter certified copy was applied for on 11.08.2023, which was received on 09.09.2023 and immediately thereafter the appellant approached to the counsel at Jabalpur, who on the basis o f the documents drafted the appeal and filed before this Court. Learned counsel submits that the sufficient cause mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be considered liberally. Accordingly, he prays for condonation of delay in filing of the second appeal.

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

5. Bare perusal of the application shows that the appellants have not even mentioned the name of their counsel, who filed the appeal before the first appellate court and allegedly assured them that he will take care of the appeal and will inform time to time about the status of the case. Even no date has been mentioned in the application, as to when they contacted to the counsel on

Signature Not Verified mobile and when the counsel did not attend their phone calls then why they did Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 10/27/2023 5:28:23 PM

not approach to the counsel personally, has also not been mentioned.

6. In my considered opinion, the application is very sketchy and does not give reasonable/proper explanation of delay of 1611 days in filing of the second appeal.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, I.A No.16662/2023 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the second appeal is also dismissed.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 10/27/2023 5:28:23 PM