[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ambika Prasad Mishra vs Sandeep Sharma on 2 December, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62521
1 SA-1908-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1908 of 2024
AMBIKA PRASAD MISHRA
Versus
SANDEEP SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramnath Dwivedi - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the
order dated 03.05.2024 passed by 4th District Judge, Rewa in MJC No.99/2023
affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2022 passed by Additional Second
Civil Judge Junior Division to the Court of First Civil Judge Junior Division,
Rewa in civil suit No.39003-B/2017, whereby Trial Court decreed the
respondent/plaintiff's suit for compensation of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @
6% p.a. and the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed as
barred by limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the suit filed by
the plaintiff for recovery of compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- was clearly
barred by limitation and in view of the fact that the appellant/defendant was
acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, he was under impression that he has also
won in the civil suit, which was filed on the basis of false set of facts. He submits
that when the respondent started making recovery of the decretal amount then the
villagers told about the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court against the
appellant and immediately he sent his son to the counsel and came to know about
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62521
2 SA-1908-2024
the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2022 passed in the civil suit. Thereafter, the
certified copy of the judgment was applied for through the counsel, who informed
the appellant about receipt of certified copy and then after making arrangement of
the funds/judicial stamps he contacted to the counsel on 01.02.2023, thereupon the
counsel drafted the second appeal and got filed the same before the High Court.
He submits that the application was supported by affidavit of the appellant,
therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of about 301
days occurred in filing of the civil appeal ought to have been condoned by First
Appellate Court because the appellant has good case on merits and the suit could
not have been decreed in any manner. With these submissions he prays for
admission of the second appeal.
3 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and perused the
record.
4. It is not in dispute that after giving due opportunity of hearing the civil
suit was decided by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2022, in
which the evidence of the defendant was closed on 27.01.2022 and after hearing
final arguments of the counsel for the parties, final judgment and decree was
passed on 08.03.2022. It is also clear from the record that the defendant himself
was taking care of his case and he was in direct contact of the counsel.
5. After coming from Allahabad, as to why the appellant/defendant did not
contact to his counsel and as to why he did not try to know about final judgment
passed by Trial Court, has not been mentioned in the application. It is also not
mentioned in the application as to when the certified copy of the judgment and
decree was applied for and when he received the certified copy. Although the
application has been drafted in the manner that the appellant was not aware about
the judgment and decree, but in the application no specific averment has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62521
3 SA-1908-2024
made about no knowledge of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
6 . From perusal of the entire application it is clear that the same is very
sketchy and does not give the reasonable explanation of about 301 days delay.
7 . 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.
8 . Resultantly, in my considered opinion, First Appellate Court does not
appear to have committed any illegality in dismissing the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in dismissing the civil appeal as barred by
limitation.
9. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
