Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nonelal Dead Through His Lrs Smt. Vidya ... vs Collector on 9 July, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30322
1 SA-1550-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1550 of 2025
NONELAL DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS SMT. VIDYA BAI NOW DEAD
THROUGH LRS DEVIDEEN MALLAH AND OTHERS
Versus
COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohan Lal Sharma - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Pravan Laghna Pandey - Panel Lawyer for the respondents 1-4/State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the final order dated 29/4/2025 passed by 20th District Judge,
Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.368/2025, whereby First Appellate Court has
dismissed the civil appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 5/5/2017
passed by 13th Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.18-A/2013, pursuant
to dismissal of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Facts in short are that the appellants/plaintiffs and other
plaintiffs/respondents 5-10 instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction in respect of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession, in which
the defendants contended that the plaintiffs have encroached upon the
Government land, which is recorded as Waqf property.
3. After holding trial, Trial Court dismissed the suit on merits as well as on
the ground of jurisdiction vide judgment and decree dated 5/5/2017.
4. Against the judgment and decree dated 5/5/2017, the
appellants/plaintiffs preferred regular civil appeal alongwith an application under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30322
2 SA-1550-2025
Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 7
years 11 months, which by the impugned final order dated 29/4/2025 has been
dismissed by First Appellate Court with the observation that the
appellants/plaintiffs have not been able to explain the delay of 7 years 11 months.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the counsel
appearing before Trial Court did not inform the plaintiffs about the proceedings
and although they were in regular contact of the counsel, but could not get the
information and lastly, they came to know that the judgment and decree has been
passed by Trial Court on 5/5/2017 and then they obtained certified copies of the
record on 31/1/2025 and filed the regular civil appeal. He submits that First
Appellate Court has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order
dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and then in
dismissing the regular civil appeal. With these submissions, he prays for
admission of the second appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-4/State supports the
impugned final order and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs claim their title on the basis of adverse
possession, which upon due consideration of the material available on record was
negatived by Trial Court and at the same time, in the light of pleas taken in the
written statement as well as in the light of documents available on record showing
the suit property as Waqf property, decided the issue No.5 holding that Civil
Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and accordingly, dismissed the suit vide
judgment and decree dated 5/5/2017.
9. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that the
appellants have not given reasonable explanation of long delay of 7 years 11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30322
3 SA-1550-2025
months, therefore, in my considered opinion, First Appellate Court has not
committed any illegality in dismissing the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
10. 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.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality in
the impugned final order passed by First Appellate Court as well as in the
judgment and decree passed by Trial Court.
12. Accordingly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
13. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
