Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Mahboob vs Kadeer on 14 February, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7222
1 SA-1217-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1217 of 2021
MOHAMMAD MAHBOOB
Versus
KADEER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Singh Baghel - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
Heard on IA No.6514/2021, which is an application for condonation of
delay in filing of the Second Appeal.
2. Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by 1057 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel
for the appellant submits that although the appellant was aware of passing of
the impugned judgment and decree dated 20/1/2017 passed by District Judge,
Shahdol in Civil Appeal No.40A/2015, but due to illness of his wife and as
the appellant was busy in taking care of his wife, who is suffering from
various ailments, he could not file the appeal within the limitation. Learned
counsel submits that in support of the ailments of his wife the appellant has
filed several documents showing that appellant's wife remained seriously ill
w.e.f. 22/5/2014 to 14/09/2021, when the instant appeal was filed. He further
submits that "sufficient cause" mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should be considered liberally. With these submissions, he prays for
allowing the application.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7222
2 SA-1217-2021
4. No one is appearing on behalf of the respondent 1/defendant,
although served and represented through counsel.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. Suit in question was filed for declaration of title and permanent
injunction in respect of the land shown in the plaint map as Ka, Kha,
Ga and Gha except the land mentioned as Aa, Ba, Sa and Da. At the same
time, without making specific averments, the relief of possession was also
sought. Although suit was dismissed by Trial Court, but First Appellate
Court having found the plaintiff to be owner and in possession of the
disputed land, decreed the suit in respect of declaration and permanent
injunction. As the plaintiff was found to be owner and in possession,
therefore, First Appellate Court did not grant relief of possession.
7. Although the appellant has tried to say that he was engaged in
taking care of his wife, but medical documents show that wife of the
appellant was ill w.e.f. 22/5/2014, i.e. prior to filing of the regular civil
appeal before First Appellate Court on 14/7/2015, therefore, after getting
success in the civil appeal the ground of illness of wife for filing the second
appeal before this Court in respect of relief of possession, which was not
specifically asked for in the civil suit, cannot be taken as a ground for
condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, which is barred by 1057
days. Even otherwise, the application for condonation of delay is very
sketchy and does not give any reasonable explanation of long delay of 1057
days.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7222
3 SA-1217-2021
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
1057 days in filing of Second Appeal, I.A. No.6514/2021 deserves to be and
is hereby dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is also dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed
off/closed and interim order of stay, if any, shall stand vacated.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
