Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Ragini Lakhera vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58175
1 MCC-3231-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 3231 of 2018
SMT RAGINI LAKHERA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashutosh Godbole - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Devendra Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.15089/2018 which is an application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this MCC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that the
defaults pointed out by the Registry could not be noted by the clerk of
the counsel for the applicant, therefore the defaults as pointed out could
not be removed within the time and due to non-compliance of
peremptory order dated 03.07.2014, W.P. No.6138 of 2014 has been
dismissed. It is further submitted that in regular routine the present status
of the writ petition was checked, the High Court website showing the
dismissal of the writ petition. Due to aforesaid reason, delay of 1574
days occurred in filing this restoration application. In these
circumstances, I.A. No.15089/2018 may be allowed and condone the
delay in filing this MCC and this MCC may also be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58175
2 MCC-3231-2018
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed the
application. It is further submitted that this MCC/restoration application
is filed by delay of more than four years and there is no specific
explanation given in the application for condonation of delay,
therefore, there is no sufficient ground to restore W.P. No.6138/2014 in
its original number. In these circumstances, this MCC be dismissed.
Counsel appearing for respondents also placed reliance on the judgment
passed by Supreme Court in the case of D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of
Kerala and another; (2007) 2 SCC322.
4. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Looking to the aforesaid averment, it appears that there is no
sufficient cause for filing this MCC after more than four years. In such a
circumstances, the explanation occurred for condonation of delay in
filing this MCC appears to be concocted and is not acceptable. Even
otherwise, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
very sketchy and does not give reasonable explanation of delay of 1574
days.
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 in the case of Majji
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58175
3 MCC-3231-2018
Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC
7. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of
delay of 1574 days in filing of MCC, I.A. No.15089/2018, an application
for condonation of delay deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
8. Resultantly, the MCC is also dismissed.
9. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
RC
