Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramshiromani Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39911
1 SA-1115-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1115 of 2012
RAMSHIROMANI PATHAK (DEAD) THROUGH LRs.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kumar Gautam - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ramji Pandey - Govt. Advocate for respondent 1/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.11968/2012, 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 616 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel
for the appellants submits that the original appellant was unaware of the
impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.2010 because his counsel did not
inform him till 13.06.2012 about passing of the judgment and decree on
24.10.2010 and thereafter the appellant suffered from Jaundice from
14.11.2011 to 18.06.2012 and when he recovered from illness, he
immediately contacted to his counsel and obtained the certified copy of
judgment and decree from him and then on 06.10.2012 approached the
counsel at Jabalpur, for filing the second appeal. He submits that in these
circumstances there is no unintentional and inordinate delay and sufficient
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39911
2 SA-1115-2012
cause mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be considered
liberally. In support of the application a medical certificate has also been
filed. With these submissions, he prays for condonation of delay in filing of
the second appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1/State opposes the
application and prays for dismissal of the same.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Undisputedly, the impugned judgment and decree was passed on
24.10.2010, certified copy of which was applied for on 29.10.2011 which
after preparation was delivered on 10.11.2011, whereby first appellate Court
has decreed the plaintiff's suit in respect of relief of permanent injunction
denying the claim of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession.
As is clear from the memo of appeal, there are two major sons and two
daughters in the family of the appellant and in any case after receipt of
information about the impugned judgment and decree, he could file the
appeal through their sons. Even otherwise, a long period shown in the
certificate regarding illness from Jaundice w.e.f. 14.11.2011 to 18.06.2012,
especially in absence of any prescription for taking treatment, does not
appear to be reasonable and creates doubts.
7. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid cannot be a ground to
condone the delay of 616 days in filing of the second appeal. Further, perusal
of the application for condonation of delay shows that it is very sketchy and
does not give any reasonable explanation of long delay of 616 days.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39911
3 SA-1115-2012
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
616 days in filing of second appeal, I.A. No.11968/2012 deserves to be and
is hereby dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the second appeal is also dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
