Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkapoor Dangi vs The General Manager on 29 May, 2024
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 MAY, 2024
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1665 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAJKAPOOR DANGI S/O SHRI FAUZDAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION
VILLAGE TEHARWA, TEHSIL NIWARI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH TIWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT HEAVY
ELECTRICALS LIMITED PRASHASHAN BHAWAN
BHEL BHOPAL BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARAYAN DAS PATEL S/O NOT KNOWN QUARTER
NO. 298 AF SECTOR BARKHEDA BHEL BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GIRIJA KUMAR SONI,M QUARTER NO. 450/A,
SECTOR, BARKHEDA, BHEL, BHOPAL, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BHARATLAL SAHU S/O NOT KNOWN L-I 250 A
SECTOR GOVINDPURA BHEL BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for admission, this day, th e court passed
the following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 8900/2024, which is an application for condonation of
delay in filing of the MCC/application for restoration of S.A. No.1369/2000.
2. Registry has reported this MCC to be barred by 3337 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, learned counsel for the applicant submits that duly engaged
counsel in the second appeal Shri R.N. Shukla, has already passed away and
without there being any information to the applicant he neither appeared on
02.05.2007 nor appeared on 11.02.2015 when the case was called for hearing.
Learned counsel submits that because the applicant was not aware of dismissal
of his appeal, therefore he could not contact to the new counsel within time. By
placing reliance on the decision in the case of Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal
and another AIR 1981 SC 1400, learned counsel submits that for fault of the
counsel, litigant should not be made to suffer. With these submissions, he prays
for condonation of delay and allowing the application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record as well as
the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. From the order sheet dtd. 11.02.2015, it appears that the second appeal
was dismissed for want of prosecution due to non appearance of counsel for
the appellant. The order sheet also discloses that on the last date i.e. on
02.05.2007 also none had appeared on behalf of the appellant. In the
application, it is mentioned that duly engaged counsel Shri R.N. Shukla has
passed away but no date of death of Shri R.N. Shukla has been mentioned. It is
also not mentioned in the application that applicant was visiting the office of the
counsel at proper/regular interval. It is well known fact that record of the High
Court is computerized since the year 2014 and all the final orders are available
on the internet.
6. Even otherwise, for seeking appointment in the Bharat Heavy Electricals
Limited, the civil suit was filed by the applicant which has been dismissed by
courts below and for appointment in the respondent/company there is age limit
of 60 years.
7. Nothing is mentioned in the application as to why the applicant did not
contact to the counsel even within a long period of 8-9 years. It appears that the
applicant himself has remained negligent and the application is very sketchy and
does not give reasonable and proper explanation of delay.
8. 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.
9. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of delay of 3337
days in filing of the application for restoration of second appeal, the I.A
No.8900/2024 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
