[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mansaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64967
1 SA-513-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 513 of 2020
MANSARAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divesh Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ramji Pandey - Government Advocate for the State/respondent 1.
Shri Jagtendra Prasad - Advocate for the respondents 2 to 7.
JUDGMENT
Upon service of notice on the respondents 2 to 7, this case is listed
today for consideration of pending application (IA no.2367/2020) under
Order XLI Rule 5 CPC.
2. After arguing for some time on the pending application under Order
XLI Rule 5 CPC, learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that looking
to the short point involved in the matter, second appeal itself may be heard
finally.
3. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by District Judge, Khandwa
in RCA no.17/2019 affirming the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by 6th
Civil Judge Class-I, East Nimar, Khandwa in civil suit no.31A/2016 whereby
the Trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable in view of the
provisions of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and upon
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64967
2 SA-513-2020
filing civil appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs, the same was dismissed as
barred by limitation of about 47 days.
4. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on 13.10.2025 on
the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in dismissing the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as well as
appeal as barred by limitation of 47 days ?"
5. Supporting the averments made in the application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act filed before the First Appellate Court supported by
affidavit of one of the appellants namely Govind, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that only the appellant 2-Govind was taking care of the
case, but unfortunately after passing of the final order by the Trial Court on
16.01.2019, he fell ill due to malaria and typhoid. He submits that although
counter affidavit was filed denying the averments made in the application,
but the application was supported by medical certificate issued by the Doctor
of Mayank Hospital and on the available facts and in the circumstances of
the case and looking to the length of delay, there was no reason to disbelieve
the certificate issued by the Doctor and without taking into consideration this
aspect of the matter, First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in
dismissing the application and in refusing to condone the delay of about 47
days. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the second appeal and
by condoning the delay in filing of the civil appeal, he prays for remanding
the matter to the First Appellate Court to decide the same on merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64967
3 SA-513-2020
6. In turn, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7
supports the impugned order passed by First Appellate Court and prays for
dismissal of the second appeal with the submissions that there being no
reasonable/proper explanation of each day's delay in filing of the civil appeal
before the First Appellate Court, it has rightly dismissed the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the impugned order shows that although First Appellate
Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter as well
as the medical certificate submitted by the appellants/plaintiffs in support of
the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but in the light of
counter affidavit filed by the respondents, First Appellate Court has observed
that since the appellants have not filed any reply/counter to the counter
affidavit submitted by the respondents 2-7, therefore, the reason of delay
assigned in the application does not appear to be proper and resultantly,
refused to condone the delay.
9. It is well settled that while considering the application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt liberal approach and if
possible, should try to decide the matter on merits.
10. In the present case, looking to the reason assigned in the
application and there being no justification to disbelieve the medical reason
supported by medical certificate, this Court finds that the delay of about 47
days occurred in filing of the civil appeal ought to have been condoned by
the First Appellate Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64967
4 SA-513-2020
11. Resultantly, delay of about 47 days occurred in filing of the civil
appeal stands condonded and by setting aside the impugned order dated
11.12.2019, the matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court to restore
the civil appeal to its original number and to decide the same on its own
merits.
12. With the aforesaid, this second appeal is allowed and disposed of.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
14. However, no order as to the costs.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
