Ajay vs Premsingh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13720 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ajay vs Premsingh on 10 May, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                          1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT I N D O R E
                      BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

              ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2024

           SECOND APPEAL No. 3509 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
   AJAY S/O SHRI RAMSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 25
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE KHANDLAI JAGIR
   TEH. MANAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   VIJAY S/O SHRI RAMSINGH BHILAL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O: KHANDLAI JAGIR, TEHSHIL
   MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   GOURABAI W/O SHRI RAMSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 53
3. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: KHANDLAI
   JAGIR, TEHSHIL MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                       .....APPELLANTS
(SHRI SHYAMLAL PATIDAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)

AND
   PREMSINGH S/O SHRI RAMSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 43
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE KRISHI VIBHAG BARWANI
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   RUKMABAI W/O SHRI RAMSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 63
2. YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O: GRAM KHANDALAI
   TEHSIL MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SANTARABAI D/O SHRI RAMSINGH BHILALA OCCUPATION:
3. HOUSEWORK R/O: GRAM KHANDALAI TEHSIL MANAWAR
   DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SUNITABAI D/O SHRI RAMSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 68
4. YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK R/O: SINGHANA ,
   TEHSIL MANAWAR, DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SANGEETA BAI W/O SHRI PREMSINGH BHILALA, AGED
5. ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O: BADWANI
   DIST BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH COLLECTOR,
                                              2

               DISTRICT - DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
          (SHRI HARISH JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5)
          (SHRI MAYANK MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
                 This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed
          the following:-

                                         ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.9778 of 2019 which is an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The delay is of 1012 days.

2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that a liberal view should be adopted in condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

3. It is stated that the appellants had appeared before the Revenue Court, Tehsildar, SDO and Commissioner (Revenue) and thereafter has filed the civil appeal so it appears that he is aware of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and first appellate court. It has also been stated that compromise has not been done between the parties.

4. Counsel for the other side has opposed the prayer.

5. There is inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The delay has not been properly explained. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, interlocutory application stands rejected.

6. Resultantly, this second appeal also stands dismissed.

                                                              (HIRDESH)
 Arun/-                                                         JUDGE

ARUN
NAIR