Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramanuj Sahu vs Firm Milan Vastrabhandar Katara Bazar ... on 20 May, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24725
1 SA-322-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF MAY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 322 of 2024
RAMANUJ SAHU
Versus
FIRM MILAN VASTRABHANDAR KATARA BAZAR SAGAR AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Umesh Tripathi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveriya - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No. 2150 of 2024, which is an application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant/ plaintiff Ramanuj Sahu was minor when the civil suit was filed,
hence his father Babu Lal Sahu was prosecuting and looking after the case.
His father died on 18.06.2015. After his death, elder brother of the appellant
namely Mahesh Kumar Sahu used to look after the case until his death. After
death of Mahesh Kumar Sahu, appellant came to know through the
documents kept in the office of the joint firm that cases are pending in the
High Court about the suit property. When he enquired from advocate Shri
Umesh Tripathi, he informed that he has only one Second Appeal pending in
the High Court in which respondent is Subhash Modi. The appellant gone
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24725
2 SA-322-2024
through the diary of his late father in which telephone number of one
Advocate Ku. Rama Gupta was mentioned. He tried to contact her but got no
response from the phone. Later on he came to know that she had shifted to
Chattisgarh. Appellant could not get the address of office of Advocate Ku.
Rama Gupta, who was earlier living at Bai Ka Baghicha, Gamapur, Jabalpur
and when he enquired then he came to know that she had not filed any appeal
and Advocate Rama Gupta also expired in the year 2011.
3. It is mentioned in the application that the appellant searched for
Second Appeal in the High Court and came to know that no Second Appeal
has been filed then he obtained fresh certified copy from District Court,
Sagar from his counsel and he filed the Second Appeal immediately without
any delay.
4. It is mentioned in the application that the delay in filing the
second appeal is of 19 years 01 week and 6 days, which is requested to be
condoned as the appellant was not having knowledge of legal proceedings as
the same was being looked after his father and elder brother who expired in
the year 2015 and 2021 respectively and after COVID when for the first time
appellant came to Jabalpur in the year 2023 and lot of time was consumed in
the search of Advocate Ku. Rama Gupta and get confirmation that no Second
Appeal has been filed, then appellant procured fresh certified copy from
District Court, Sagar for filing this appeal. Affidavit of Ramanuj Sahu is
filed. Annexure A/1 is certified copy of judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed
by the First Civil Judge, Class II, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 60A/2003
(Ramanuj Vs. Firm Milan Vastra Bhandar and others) regarding eviction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24725
3 SA-322-2024
which shows that the application for certified copy was filed on 29.11.2023
and certified copy was obtained on 05.12.2023 and suit was dismissed.
5. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the
decree of the trial Court. Death certificate of Laxmibai Sahu is filed as
Annexure A/4 which shows that death took place on 12.02.2019. Treatment
paper of Laxmibai Sahu is also filed. Death certificate of Mahesh Kumar
Sahu is filed which shows that the death occurred on 02.12.2021. Treatment
papers of Mahesh Kumar Sahu is also filed. Death certificate of Babulal
Sahu is also filed which shows that he expired on 24.06.2015. His treatment
papers are also filed. A paper cutting photo is also filed in which it is
mentioned that a person suffering from Cancer committing suicide by
shooting himself from his licensed gun. Shraddhanjali Sabha letter is filed in
which it is mentioned that Babulal expired on 7.11.2021. Reply to the
application is filed, although hard copy is not on record but scanned copy of
reply is shown in ERP system and vide document No. 4724 of 2024 it is
submitted by respondent No.1 that the applicant was aware about the legal
case and all contentions and submissions made in the application for
condonation of delay are based on vague and insubstantial grounds. No
explanation for day to day delay has been given and entire application has
not explained the long delay of 19 years 3 months and 10 days. It is
submitted that during their lifetime, father and elder brother of appellant did
not assail the judgment, in such circumstances the present appellant cannot
assail the judgment now. It is mentioned that in the case of PundlikJalam
Patil vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another reported
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24725
4 SA-322-2024
in (2008) 17 SCC 448, Hon'ble Supreme Court 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", and the said judgment was further
followed recently in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs.
Reddy Sridevi and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 332 , and this has been
consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in the case of Chief
Post Master & Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another reported in
AIR 2012 SC 1506, Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources
Department) represented by Executive Engineer Vs. Borse Brothers Engineer
& Contractors Private Ltd. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460, Sheo Raj Singh
(Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Union of India and
Others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531, Brahmapal Vs. National Insurance
Company reported in (2021) 6 SCC 516 and State of Odisha and Another
Vs. Krupasindhu Nayak and another reported in 2023 SCC Online 1941, and
hence the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the appellants
and consequently instant Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of Kanaklata Das and others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and
others reported in (2018)2 SCC 352 and State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani
and others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, Sridevi Datla Vs. Union of India
and others reported in (2021)5 SCC 321, S.L.P.(C) Nos. 11398-11400 of
2009 ( State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (dead) by L.Rs and Ors) in
which delay of 6,500 days was condoned.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24725
5 SA-322-2024
7. At the outset, it can be very fairly observed by this Court that in
condoning delay length of delay pales into significance when proper
justification in application along with reliable documents are filed to show
why delay was caused. In one case delay of 6 months may not be condoned
when there are no sufficient grounds by way of pleadings and evidence and
in another case even a delay of 6 years may be condoned when there are
compelling, proper, sufficient and convincing reasons mentioned in the
application along with documents.
8. It is seen that in the application for condonation of delay specific
dates have not been mentioned which are essential. The appellant has stated
that he was minor when the civil suit was filed but he has not filed his age
proof by which this Court can take a view as to when he became major. In
paragraph 3 it is not mentioned as to when appellant came to Jabalpur.
Simply date of death of Mahesh Kumar Sharma is mentioned. It is also not
mentioned as to when he contacted his advocate Mr. Umesh Tripathi. It is
also not mentioned as to when he tried to contact or located the office of
Advocate Ku. Rama Gupta, therefore, when specific facts are not mentioned
then delay of 19 years cannot be lightly condoned.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in State of
Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Supra) the facts are similar and in that case
delay was condoned on exemplary cost of Rs.1 Lakh.
10. The case of State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Supra) is
regarding a matter involving more than 4,000 acres of land including 3,500
acres of forest land. Therefore, nature of present case and that of State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24725
6 SA-322-2024
Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Supra) is entirely different. While
condoning delay, nature of litigation is very important and across spectrum
the same approach would not advance the cause of justice. Even otherwise,
this Court can safely observe that dismissal of one eviction case on merit
cannot grant an estoppel for filing Civil Suit on new cause of action.
Therefore, after considering the application and the documents filed, this
Court is of prima-facie view that appellant has failed to give proper and
sufficient explanation for delay of about 19 years, therefore, I.A. No. 2150 of
2024 , which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
dismissed.
Consequently, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
