Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hemraj S/O Kanhaiyalal (Died) Through ... on 28 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 1 MCC No.493/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
MISC. CIVIL CASE No.493 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
...Applicants
and
HEMRAJ S/O KANHAIYALAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. KESARBAI AND OTHERS
...Respondents
Reserved on 27.03.2025
Pronounced on 28.03.2025
Appearance:
Shri Aproov Joshi, learned Government Advocate for the
applicants / State.
Shri Shashwat Seth, learned counsel for the respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The applicant / State has filed present MCC No.493/2019 on
28.02.2019 along with I.A. No.1548 of 2019 under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 642 days.
02. The averments made in the petition are that being aggrieved by and
dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of learned trial Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 2 MCC No.493/2019
Regular Civil Suit No.14-A/2003 dated 29.07.2006 and learned First
appellate Court in Property Appeal No.155-A/2006 dated 24.02.2007, the
present second appeal No.889/2007 is filed with a delay of 87 days, the
delay condoned, admitted the appeal on 18.01.2010 and ordered notice to
respondents, one of the respondent died, no steps have been taken to bring
the legal heirs of deceased respondent (Hemraj) due to which appeal is
abated on 06.05.2011 on the ground of failure to bring the legal heirs of
respondent (Hemraj).
03. The applicant / State filed MCC No.512/2011 on 29.09.2011 to set
aside the abatement order dated 06.05.2011 and legal representatives of
deceased respondent (Hemraj) to be taken on record and the said MCC
No.512/2011 came up for hearing on 07.12.2011 granted a week's time to
applicant / State to remove the defaults, failing which, MCC No.512/2011
shall be dismissed without further reference to the Court. When the
applicants failed to comply with the order dated 07.12.2011, the MCC
No.512/2011 dismissed on 23.11.2012 for non-compliance of per-
emptory order dated 07.12.2011.
04. The applicant / State filed MCC No.451/2012 for restoration of
MCC No.512/2011, which was dismissed on 23.11.2012 consequently,
S.A. No.889/2007 may be restored, the said MCC No.451/2012 is
allowed on 03.09.2014 and MCC No.512/2011 is restored. In spite of
allowing the MCC No.451/2012 on 03.09.2014, till 30.03.2017 applicants
/ State did not take steps to bring the legal heirs of respondent on record,
on 30.03.2017 when the came up for hearing, four weeks' time granted to
bring the legal heirs of deceased, failing which, present MCC
No.512/2011 shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. On
19.06.2017 in non-compliance of per-emptory order dated 30.03.2017 in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 3 MCC No.493/2019
MCC No.512/2011 applicants / State have not removed the defects within
time, consequently, the order in MCC No.512/2011, same is to be treated
to have been dismissed on 19.06.2017 without reference to the Court.
05. The MCC No.512/2011 dismissed on 19.06.2017 for non-
compliance of the per-emptory order dated 30.03.2017 (supra). The
present MCC No.493/2019 has been filed for restoration of MCC
No.512/2011 with a delay of 642 days period from (19.06.2017 to
28.02.2019).
06. A reply filed by the respondents containing inter alia that the
present MCC No.493/2019 has been filed by the applicant / State for
restoration of MCC No.512/2011 dismissed on 07.12.2011 and for
restoration of Second Appeal No.889/2007 dismissed on 06.05.2011.
Further stated that MCC No.512/2011 dismissed for non-compliance of
per-emptory order dated 30.03.2017. Further stated that Tehsildar and
other officials having received the communication on 04.02.2019, the
applicant / State took more than 02 years to bring the legal representatives
of deceased respondent (Hemraj) and caused delay of 642 days in filing
the restoration of the MCC No.512/2011 without showing sufficient cause
in case and condonation of delay is found to be thoroughly negligent by
the applicant / State. Further averred that applicants / State not cured the
defects till the date of dismissal of MCC No.512/2011 dated 19.06.2017.
No sufficient cause has been averted in the application in spite of granting
much time to bring the legal heirs of the deceased on record and the delay
has not explained properly and no sufficient cause shown to condone the
delay, the applicant / State failed to establish cause of delay for bringing
the legal heirs of deceased respondent, he prays to dismiss the MCC
No.493/2019 as lack of merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 4 MCC No.493/2019
07. The learned Government Advocate submitted that no doubt there
was delay and Tehsildar and other officials have not respond in spite of
reminders issued to them and failed to submit report to bring the legal
heirs of deceased and causes delay and the delay in filing application may
be condoned and MCC No.512/2011 may be restored.
08. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the second
appeal filed by State bearing No.889/2007 dated 15.10.2007 against the
concurrent findings of Courts below and pending appeal, one of the
respondent Hemraj died on 06.09.2010 and no steps were taken,
respondents filed an application for dismissal of the appeal, the applicants
/ State were aware of the aforesaid fact, they have not taken any steps and
the appeal stands abated on 06.05.2011. Further submitted that the
applicants / State filed MCC No.512/2011 for restoration of S.A.
No.889/2007 and condoning the delay of 118 days, which was dismissed
on 23.12.2011 for non-compliance of per-emptory order dated
07.12.2011, further submitted that respondent filed another MCC
No.451/2012 to restore the MCC No.512/2011 and consequently, S.A.
No.889/2007, which was dismissed on 06.05.2011 and the said MCC
No.451/2012 was allowed on 03.09.2014, further submitted that in spite
of allowing the above MCC, the applicants / State have not taken steps to
bring the legal heirs of respondent on record, on 30.03.2017, the per-
emptory order granting four weeks' time to bring the legal heirs of
respondent No.3, failing which, MCC No.512/2011 stands dismissed
without further reference, the said MCC No.512/2011 was dismissed on
19.06.2017 for non-compliance of per-emptoray order dated 30.03.2017.
Further submitted that the present MCC No.493/2019 filed with a delay of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 5 MCC No.493/2019
642 days without showing any sufficient cause and he prays to dismiss the
present petition.
09. In the light of above arguments of the learned counsel for the
parties, the point for determination arises as follows :
"(i) Whether, the delay of 642 days be condoned by
showing any sufficient cause to restore the MCC
No.512/2011, which was dismissed on 19.06.2017 and
consequently, to restore the Second Appeal No.889/2007
dismissed on 06.05.2011?"
10. On perusal of the application, it is found that delay has not been
properly explained except stating that the Tehsilar and other officials are
not responding to submit a report bringing the legal heirs of respondent in
spite of issuing many reminders to them except that they have not stated
anything showing sufficient causes for delay.
11. The explanation submitted by the applicants / State is not at all
appropriate in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Chief
Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and
Another1 observed as under :-
"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned
were well aware or conversant with the issues involved
including the prescribed period of limitation for taking
up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in
this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate
period of limitation when the Department was
possessed with competent persons familiar with court
proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable
explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is
to be condoned mechanically merely because the
Government or a wing of the Government is a party
before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter
of condonation of delay when there was no gross
negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides,
1. (2012) 3 SCC 563
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 6 MCC No.493/2019
a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts
and circumstances, the Department cannot take
advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on
account of impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes
cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies
being used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody, including the
Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and instrumentality
that unless they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was bona fide
effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation
that the file was kept pending for several months/years
due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the
process. The government departments are under a
special obligation to ensure that they perform their
duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for the government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light and
should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper
explanation offered by the Department for the delay
except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable
and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge
delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue of
condonation of delay in the following judgments :
13. In Allala Bhagavanth Rao vs. Garvandula Vijayalaxmi and
others2, in paras-12 to 15 held as follows:-
12. The word 'sufficient cause' is not defined either in
the Limitation Act or in the C.P.C.; the reason appears
to be that there is no straight jacket formula to decide
whether the cause shown for condonation of delay is
2. 2016 (4) ALT 43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 7 MCC No.493/2019
sufficient cause or not. Depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case, the Court can exercise
discretion and decide the sufficient cause. Sufficient
cause shall be construed liberally without adopting any
pedantic approach. It cannot be stretched to frustrate the
very intention of Legislature in specifying the period for
filing appeal or petition etc.
13. In Lanka Venkateswarlu (Died) by L.Rs.v.State of
A.P., (2011) 1 UPLJ 242 (SC), the apex Court heavily
laid on the Courts when to allow the petitions, though
no sufficient cause is made out, and ruled as follows:
"We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which
could have impelled the High Court to condone the
delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The
concepts such as "liberal approach", "justice oriented
approach", "substantial justice" cannot be employed to
jettison the substantial law of limitation, especially in
cases where the Court concludes that there is no
justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach
adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of
judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required
to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the
parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case,
not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate
language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms.
The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant
language in a judgment has been repeatedly
disapproved by this Court in a number of cases. Whilst
considering applications for condonation of delay under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy
unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All
discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have
to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the
law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic
manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies;
prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form
the basis of exercising discretionary powers."
"14. In fact, the petitioner did not make out any
sufficient cause except making a bald unsubstantiated
allegation in the affidavit If such lame excuses for
condoning the delay are accepted as sufficient causes,
virtually denuding or jettisoning the substantive law of
limitation.
15. In view of the law declared by the apex Court
basing on the concept of real justice, substantial justice
the Courts cannot allow petitions under Section 5 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 8 MCC No.493/2019
Limitation Act, when no sufficient cause is made out.
Therefore, basing on lame excuse or unsubstantiated
cause, it is difficult to condone the delay, liberally
construing the word sufficient cause."
14. In Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy3, the Hon'ble Apex Court broadly culled
out the following principles:
"i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-
oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an
application for condonation of delay, for the courts are
not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to
remove injustice.
ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in
their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being
had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and
are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining
fact- situation.
iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the
technical considerations should not be given undue and
uncalled for emphasis.
iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate
causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of
the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking
condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof
should not affect public justice and cause public
mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant
so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure
of justice.
vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the
conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a
totally unfettered free play.
viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and
a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former
doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it
may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants
strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal
delineation.
3. (2013) 12 SCC 649
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 9 MCC No.493/2019
ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party
relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors
to be taken into consideration. It is so as the
fundamental principle is that the courts are required to
weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both
parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go
by in the name of liberal approach.
x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds
urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should
be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to
face such a litigation.
xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with
fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking
recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully
scrutinized and the approach should be based on the
paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on
objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing
a collective cause should be given some acceptable
latitude.
16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more
guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They
are:
a) An application for condonation of delay should be
drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard
manner harbouring the notion that the courts are
required to condone delay on the bedrock of the
principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal
to justice dispensation system. \
b) An application for condonation of delay should not
be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of
individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard
being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a
conscious effort for achieving consistency and
collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made
as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-
serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can
be exhibited in a non-challan manner requires to be
curbed, of course, within legal parameters.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 10 MCC No.493/2019
15. In Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and
others4, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed:-
"17. In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
[(1962 2 SCR 762] (supra), it is observed and held as under:--
In construing s.5 it is relevant to bear in mind two
important considerations. The first consideration is that
the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for
making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the
decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the
parties. In other words, when the period of limitation
prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a
benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as
beyond challenge, and this legal right which has
accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should
not be light- heartedly disturbed. The other
consideration which cannot be ignored is that if
sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion
is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the
appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred
on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion
in that behalf should be exercised to advance
substantial justice. As has been observed by the Madras
High Court in Krishna v. Chattappan, (1890) J.L.R. 13
Mad. 269, "s. 5 gives the Court a discretion which in
respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in
which judicial power and discretion ought to be
exercised upon principles which are well understood;
the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice when
no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is
imputable to the appellant."
18. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala [(1997) 7
SCC 556], while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is
observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even
appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is
not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of
limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no
power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is
further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the
delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously.
4. 2021 SCC OnLline 1260
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 11 MCC No.493/2019
19. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer,
Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448], it is observed as
under:--
"The laws of limitation are founded on public policy.
Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statutes of
peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation
creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is
essential for public order. The principle is based on the
maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", that is, the
interest of the State requires that there should be end to
litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means
to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury,
quickening diligence and 8 preventing oppression. The object
for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy
fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general
welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort
to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly.
Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the
assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."
20. In the case of Basawaraj Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
[(2013) 14 SCC 81], it is observed and held by this Court that the
discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on
facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the
expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is
further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of
a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by
statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with
negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be
any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing
conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay
has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is
further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient
cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to
violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to
legislature."
16. In Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and
justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of
5. (2012) 5 SCC 157
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 12 MCC No.493/2019
power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statues,
the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful
litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under
challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation
apart from the costs.
What colour the expression "sufficient cause" would get in the factual
matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the
explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the
part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack
bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the
explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is
thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a
legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay."
Eventually, the Bench upon perusal of the application for condonation
of delay and the affidavit on record came to hold that certain necessary
facts were conspicuously silent and, accordingly, reversed the decision
of the High Court which had condoned the delay of more than seven
years."
17. In Kilaru Appa Rao vs. Sunku Prathapa Reddy6, the Hon'ble
Court observed:-
"11. The dictum of law is that the delay if inordinate, should
not be condoned by adopting casual or liberal approach. Courts are not
expected to condone the delay in the following circumstances:-
"1. When the reason urged is found to be concocted.
2. When the party who seeks for condonation of delay is found to
be thoroughly negligent.
3. In case condonation of inordinate delay leads to substantial
injustice to the opposite party due to the subsequent events.
4. The inordinate delay, if condoned, results in unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The list is illustrative and
not exhaustive."
18. A conspectus of above the judgments referred (Supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the
explanation is the only criterion. It was further held that the primary
6. 2022 (6) ALT 288 (TS)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:6064 13 MCC No.493/2019
function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to
advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy
the rights of parties and they are meant to see that parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. Hon'ble Apex Court also
cautioned that if the delay is occasioned by party deliberately to gain time
then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. The
explanation should not be fanciful and concocted. The Courts while
dealing with an application to condone delay should keep in mind the
right accrued to other side and should deal with such application with
utmost care and caution.
19. As per the expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court, while condoning
the delay the Court must see whether the deponent explained sufficient
cause. Involving substantial rights of the parties alone is not the criteria.
Unless, sufficient cause is shown, that in case inordinate delay, condoning
the delay does not arise. The appellant / State failed to show sufficient
cause to condone the delay of 642 days and supported by affidavit
nothing to say anything causes delay.
20. Accordingly, in view of the judgments stated (supra), there is delay
of 642 days, this Court does not find any ground to condone the delay.
21. Thus, I.A. No.1548 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
I.A. is dismissed. Consequently, the present MCC No.493/2019 is also
stand dismissed.
(Duppala Venkata Ramana, J)
Anushree
