Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Singh Yadav vs Sirnaam Singh Yadava on 13 March, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6115
1 CR-991-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 991 of 2023
DHEERAJ SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
SIRNAAM SINGH YADAVA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Siddharth Sijoria - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - Government Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This civil revision has been preferred by the defendants No.1 to
3/petitioners challenging the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by IVth District
Judge, Guna in MJC 93/2023 (RCA 149A/2023) whereby first appellate
Court in the regular civil appeal filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, has
condoned the delay in filing of the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners submits that against
the by-parte judgment and decree dated 15.09.2021, regular civil appeal was
filed on 17.07.2023, but the appellant before first appellate Court being the
plaintiff was required to file appeal within a period of 30 days and the
ground taken by him before first appellate Court for condonation of delay on
the basis of covid-19 pandemic, was not sustainable because the relaxation in
limitation given by Hon'ble Supreme Court was available only upto the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6115
2 CR-991-2023
month of March, 2022 and the appeal filed on 17.07.2023 was clearly barred
by limitation. As such, he submits that first appellate Court without taking
into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has committed illegality
in allowing the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and in treating
the appeal to be within limitation. With these submissions, he prays for
allowing the civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order
and prays for dismissal of civil revision with the further submission that in
the limited scope of Section 115 of CPC, this Court should not interfere in
the impugned order passed by first appellate Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Although, the appellant himself was plaintiff and against the
judgment and decree passed on 15.09.2021 by the trial Court, regular civil
appeal was to be filed within a period of 30 days, but undisputedly, there was
relaxation in the limitation during covid-19 pandemic, therefore, the appeal
could be filed upto March, 2022 which was filed on 17.07.2023. Perusal of
impugned order shows that the trial Court taking into consideration the
relaxation given by Hon'ble Supreme Court during covid-19 pandemic and
further by accepting the explanation offered by the respondent, has condoned
the delay in filing of the civil appeal.
6. In the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998
SC 3222, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the Court accepts the
explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and
normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6115
3 CR-991-2023
revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly
untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse.
7. In view of the aforesaid and upon due consideration of the material
available on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned
order allowing the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act.
8. Resultently, the civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Monika
