Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Mukhya Nagar Palika Adhikari Nagar on 22 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15171
1 SA-702-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 702 of 2006
ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
MUKHYA NAGAR PALIKA ADHIKARI NAGAR
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Gohadkar - Advocate for the appellants.
ORDER
This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been filed against
the judgment and decree dated 08/05/2006 passed by Additional District
Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Civil Appeal No.18/2005, by which
application filed by appellants under Section 5 of Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of approximately two years and seven months in filing
an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04/05/2002 passed by Civil
Judge Class-I, Gohad in Civil Suit No.4A/1999 was dismissed and as a
consequence thereof, the second appeal was also dismissed as barred by time.
2. The civil suit was filed by appellants for declaration that they are in
possession of the suit shop as a tenant and it was also prayed that they may
not be dispossessed as they are regularly making payment of shop. The said
suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 04/05/2002. It appears that
after two years and ten months of passing of the said judgment, appellants
preferred civil appeal No.18/2005 on 15/03/2005. An application under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15171
2 SA-702-2006
Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed in which it was mentioned that
appellant No.1 Ashok Kumar is in job from the year 1989 and earlier he was
posted in Allahabad and at present he is posted in Sagar and appellant No.2
Lalbihari has no business and his financial condition is poor and, therefore,
he has also shifted to different city in search of employment. The appellants
were not in the house when the civil suit was dismissed and, therefore, they
were not aware of the fact of dismissal of suit. They came to know only on
10/03/2005 when the employees of Municipal Council, Gohad came to their
house and instructed the family members to deposit the penalty as well as
rent. On 11/03/2005, the appellants came back to Gohad after receiving the
information from the family members and accordingly, it was prayed that
delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
3. The appellate Court by judgment dated 08/05/2006 passed in
Regular Civil Appeal No.18/2005 dismissed the application filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act and also consequently dismissed the appeal as
barred by time.
4. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, it
is submitted by counsel for appellants that appellants had made out a
sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, the appellate Court
has committed material illegality by rejecting the application filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellants.
6. The present case appears to be the best example of grabbing the
property belonging to Municipal Council, Gohad. The suit was filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15171
3 SA-702-2006
appellants for declaration that they are the tenants and are regularly making
payment of rent and they cannot be dispossessed. According to the
application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, appellant No.1 is in job
from the year 1989 and on the date of filing of an application under Section 5
of Limitation Act, he was posted in Sagar. Thus, it is clear that appellant
No.1 was not running the shop.
7. So far as the appellant No.2 is concerned, it is also the case of the
appellants that appellant No.2 had shifted to somewhere else in search of his
business, therefore, it is also clear that even appellant No.2 was not running
the shop. The aforesaid admissions made by appellants make it clear that the
appellants were not in possession of the shop and, therefore, either they had
kept the shop locked or they had sub-let the same.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
the reasons assigned by appellants in their application filed under Section 5
of Limitation Act is contrary to the claim raised by them in civil suit itself.
9. Since, appellants are in illegal possession of shop belonging to
Municipal Council, Gohad and according to the appellants, they have not
handed over the possession of the shop in spite of fact that there is no stay in
this appeal and the appeal is pending from the year 2006 and no rent has also
been paid by them to the Municipal Council, Gohad, therefore, it is clear that
appellate Court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed
under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
10. As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15171
4 SA-702-2006
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to respondents for necessary
information and compliance.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
