Madhya Pradesh High Court
Riyaz Uddin vs Smt. Zamila Bee on 20 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39478
1 MP-2453-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 20th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2453 of 2025
RIYAZ UDDIN AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. ZAMILA BEE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Narula - Advocate for the petitioners.
None.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.4.2025, annexure P/4,
passed by XXI District Judge Bhopal in MJC No.164/2024, whereby the
application submitted under section 5 of the Limitation Act along with first
appeal has been allowed and delay of 45 days has been condoned.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
despite of the fact that the respondent/appellant did not file any document in
support of the delay which was based on ailment of respondent/appellant
herself, the delay has been condoned. It is submitted that such delay could
not have been condoned by the court below on the ground that the Hon.
Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that sufficient cause has to be
shown to the Court for not filing the litigation/case within the stipulated
time. The said sufficient cause is to be shown by not calculating the length
of the delay, but, on the basis of bonafide of the party. He has relied on a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39478
2 MP-2453-2025
judgment of the Apex court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India
and another, (2025) 1 SCC 625 , wherein the Hon. Apex court has held that
where cause for delay falls within four corners of "sufficient cause",
irrespective of length of delay, same deserves to be condoned. It is
submitted that in this case, no cause has been shown in respect of delay of 45
days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the learned appellate Court has
committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in allowing such an application
filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act and thus, prayed for quashment of
the order impugned.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The appellate court pondering on the submissions and contents of
the application has opined that the delay has been caused because of ill
health of the appellant. The order has been passed placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag versus Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, and accordingly held that the
delay caused due to obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and
decree and ailment of the appellant is justified and sufficient cause has been
shown to file the appeal with delay. Accordingly, the application has been
allowed.
5. Considering the objections taken by the petitioner in the petition, the
application of the petitioner has been perused, which is supported by an
affidavit. It is evident that delay in filing the appeal is only of 45 days. The
explanation in regard to the delay has been given in the application, which is
duly supported by an affidavit of the respondent/appellant. The appellant,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39478
3 MP-2453-2025
from perusal of the cause title is of 52 years of age. The Hon. Apex Court in
the case cited by the appellant himself has held that if cause for delay falls
within the four corners of sufficient cause, irrespective of length of delay, the
same deserves to be condoned. The learned appellate court applying its mind
on the application submitted by the petitioner and placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon. Apex Court that the delay being not inordinate and has
caused due to ill health of the appellant and time consumed in obtaining
certified copy, has allowed the application.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the
court below is absolutely in consonance with the principle laid down by the
Hon. Apex Court and cannot be faulted with under the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly,
the order dated 16.4.2025, annexure P/4, passed by XXI District Judge
Bhopal in MJC No.164/2024 is hereby affirmed.
7. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
HS
