Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nanha vs Vipta on 15 January, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1396
1 MCC-856-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 856 of 2023
NANHA AND OTHERS
Versus
VIPTA
Appearance:
Shri Subodh Kathar, Advocate for applicants.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 6580/2023, which is an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the
MCC/application for restoration of S.A. No. 586/1998.
2. Registry has reported this MCC to be barred by 3318 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel
for the applicants submits that the applicants/appellants/defendants are rustic
villagers and out of total 4 appellants, 3 had died and their legal
representatives were not aware about pendency of second appeal and when
the respondent/plaintiff objected the case of demarcation of the land, then
they came to know about dismissal of second appeal on 27.02.2014.
Thereafter, on 06.03.2023, they contacted to the local counsel at Chhindwara
and then contacted to the counsel at Jabalpur for filing application for
restoration of second appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that there is sufficient cause for condonation delay in
filing of the MCC. He submits that sufficient cause mentioned in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1396
2 MCC-856-2023
application for condonation of delay should be considered liberally. With
these submissions, he prays for allowing the MCC and for restoration of the
second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/defendants and perused
the record.
5. Record shows that against the judgment and decree dtd.
27.01.1998 passed by first appellate Court, S.A. No. 586/1998 was filed,
which was pending for admission. On 13.03.2013, counsel for the appellants
sought time for advancing arguments on the question of admission, which
was granted and on 19.06.2013, counsel for the appellants was granted time
to file application for substitution of LRs of respondent but no steps were
taken and thereafter on 24.02.2014, this Court passed the common
conditional order granting further time to do the needful and as the same was
not complied with, therefore, the Registry treated the second appeal to have
been dismissed.
6. Perusal of judgment of first appellate Court shows that on the basis
of sale deed of the year 1969 executed by Jai Singh (brother of the
defendants), first appellate Court has held the plaintiff to be in possession of
the land area 77 dismil of Khasra No. 97/4 situated in Village Bagbardhiya,
Tahsil Parasia, District Chhindwara and decreed the suit restraining the
defendants from making interference in possession of the plaintiff, which in
absence of challenge to the sale deed by the defendants, cannot be said to be
illegal.
7. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act a bald
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1396
3 MCC-856-2023
statement has been made regarding no knowledge of pendency of second
appeal by the legal representatives of deceased persons. Even otherwise, the
application for condonation of delay is very sketchy and does not give
reasonable explanation of long delay of 3318 days.
8. 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 .
9. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of delay of
3318 days in filing of MCC, I.A No.6580/2023 deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed .
11. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
