Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Asha Devi vs Smt. Jagranee Through Lrs. Ratanlal ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25920
1 SA-539-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17 th OF JUNE, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 539 of 2019
SMT. ASHA DEVI
Versus
SMT. JAGRANEE THROUGH LRS. RATANLAL SONI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satyam Agrawal and Shri Aryan Shukla - Advocates for the appellant.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 2-Smt.
Asha Devi challenging the final order dated 14/1/2019 passed by Fifth Additional
District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal UR/2013 affirming the judgment and
decree dated 30/8/2011 passed by Eleventh Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur in Civil
Suit No.5A/2009, whereby Trial Court decreed respondents/plaintiffs' suit for
specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19/10/1978 and in appeal filed
only by defendant 2-Smt. Asha Devi, the same has been affirmed by First
Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation of one year six
months and nineteen days.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 2 submits that on the basis of
agreement of sale dated 19/10/1978 a civil suit was instituted on 17/10/1981 in
which the defendants had appeared upto 4/1/2010 and for want of knowledge of
further dates, they could not appear as they were not informed by the duly engaged
counsel and resultantly, the suit was decreed on 30/8/2011. He submits that Trial
Court wrongly declared the defendant 2-Smt. Asha Devi as dead and in her place,
her legal heirs were also substituted, who in fact were the legal heirs of one of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25920
2 SA-539-2019
legal representatives of original plaintiff-Smt. Jagrani. He submits that although
the decree was also executed on 21/12/2012 by Executing Court, but for want of
knowledge, they could not prefer appeal timely against the judgment and decree
dated 30/8/2011 and the appeal was preferred on 19/3/2013. He submits that as the
counsel did not inform to the defendants, therefore, there was sufficient cause for
their non-appearance in the civil suit and as the counsel also did not inform the
defendants about passing of final judgment and decree dated 30/8/2011, that itself
caused the delay in filing of the regular civil appeal before First Appellate Court.
He submits that in such circumstances, delay occurred in filing of the appeal
before First Appellate Court ought to have been condoned taking lenient view.
With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
4. In the present case, on the basis of admitted agreement of sale dated
19/10/1978 a civil suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale.
Fact remains that original plaintiff-Smt. Jagrani and defendants Smt. Rukmani
Soni and Smt. Asha Devi are sisters-in-law and were residing in the same
house/complex. In the suit, defendants were summoned and served and they
appeared before Trial Court upto 4/1/2010, but thereafter they did not appear for
the reasons best known to them. Ultimately on 30/8/2011 Trial Court passed the
judgment and decree of specific performance. Admittedly, plaintiff was also in
possession of the property in pursuance of agreement of sale. Decree of specific
performance was executed on 21/12/2012, however, nothing is available on record
as to whether in the execution proceedings, the defendants had appeared or not.
Apparently, after passing of the judgment and decree on 30/8/2011 defendants
preferred appeal on 19/3/2013, i.e. with delay of one year six months and nineteen
days.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25920
3 SA-539-2019
5. The aforesaid undisputed facts have been taken into consideration by First
Appellate Court while passing the impugned order on the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act and found that there is no sufficient cause for non-
filing the appeal within a period of 30 days prescribed for filing the regular civil
appeal.
6. 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 .
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the reasoned findings
recorded by First Appellate Court while deciding the application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned
order.
8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
