Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal Singh Chouhan (Died) S/O ... vs Smt. Sushila Devi on 17 November, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58093
1 SA-2927-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2927 of 2025
SHYAMLAL SINGH CHOUHAN (DIED) S/O JANARDAN SINGH
CHOUHAN RAMPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gyanesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate for appellants.
Shri Akhilesh Upadhyay, Panel Lawyer for respondent 5-State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 23063/2025, which is an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. Registry has reported this second appeal to be barred by 507 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel
for the appellants submits that impugned judgment and decree was passed by
1st District Judge, Sidhi on 6.3.2024. The appellants being poor persons and
rustic villagers are living in remote area and they do not have source to
contact the Advocate. When they contacted the Advocate, they came to know
that the appeal filed by their father was dismissed and immediately thereafter
they managed the amount of Court fee and expenses and reached Jabalpur to
file the appeal. He submits that due to said reason the appellants could not
file the appeal timely and the delay occurred in filing of the appeal being
based on their bonafides, deserves to be condoned. With these submissions,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58093
2 SA-2927-2025
he prays for allowing the application for condonation of delay.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
5. Apparently, the impugned judgment and decree was passed on
6.3.2024 and before the First Appellate Court itself, the appellants Rampal
Singh and Sanjay Singh being legal heirs of original appellant-Shyamlal
Singh Chouhan were substituted, so the appellants cannot take a ground that
they were not aware about the litigation filed by their father before First
Appellate Court.
6. As has been narrated above by this Court, the appellants have not
given any reasonable explanation of delay in filing the second appeal.
7. Even otherwise the suit was filed for declaration of title and
permanent injunction as well as for cancellation of adoption deed dtd.
31.12.1998 on the premise of oral/unregistered document of
acknowledgement of sale dtd. 25.07.1971 allegedly executed in favour of
original appellant-Shyamlal Singh Chouhan by Mukutdhari, the
bhoomiswami of the land in question, which has been dismissed by the
Courts below and in my considered opinion, both the Courts below do not
appear to have committed any illegality in dismissing the suit.
8. Perusal of the application shows that the application does not
disclose the sufficient reason for condonation of long delay of 507 days and
is also very sketchy.
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58093
3 SA-2927-2025
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.
10. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of delay
of 507 days in filing of the second appeal, the I.A. No.23063/2025 , deserves
to be and is hereby dismissed.
11. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is also dismissed.
12. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
