Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Parvati Bai Wife Shri Ashok Kewat vs Ashok Kewat on 14 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25868
1 CRR-4821-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4821 of 2025
SMT. PARVATI BAI WIFE SHRI ASHOK KEWAT
Versus
ASHOK KEWAT
Appearance:
Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
ORDER
Heard on IA.No.21528/2025, which is an application under Section 5
of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. There is a delay of 846 days in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that her counsel has
informed that her case is still pending before the trial court. After lapse of
sufficient time, no specific answer had been given by him, therefore, she
contacted some other counsel and inquired about her case, then, counsel
applied for certified copy of the order and thereafter, he informed her that on
26.09.2023 her case has already been finally disposed of. In the year 2023,
she was not aware with the limitation period, therefore, it is prayed that the
delay of 846 days may kindly be condoned.
4. From perusal of the impugned order dated 06.03.2023, it appears
that the trial court had passed the impugned order in presence of counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25868
2 CRR-4821-2025
the petitioner and with the consent of both the parties, the impugned order
was passed by the trial court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner
and her counsel was not aware with the passing of impugned order by the
trial court. So far as ignorance of limitation period is concerned, it is settled
in law that the ignorance of law is no excuse.
5. From perusal of the delay application, it appears that the petitioner
has filed this petition with a delay because he has no knowledge about the
law, but ignorance of law is not an excuse. Hon'ble the apex Court in the
case of P. K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in
(1997) 7 SCC 556 in paragraph No.5 has held as under:-
"This can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or
even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of
delay. In the reply filed to the application seeking
condonation of delay by the appellant in the High Court, it
is asserted that after the judgment and decree was
pronounced by the learned Sub Judge, Kollam on
30.10.1993, the scope for filing of the appeal was
examined by the District Government Pleader, Special
Law Officer, Law Secretary and the Advocate General
and in accordance with their opinion, it was decided that
there was no scope for filing the appeal but lateron,
despite the opinion referred to above, the appeal was filed
as late as on 8.1.1996 without disclosing why it was being
filed. The High Court does not appear to have examined
the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is
conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not
satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case,
any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory
one had been offered by the respondent State for
condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days."
6. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma (Supra) in
paragraph No.18 to 20 has held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25868
3 CRR-4821-2025
"18. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), 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.
19. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), 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 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 (supra), 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25868
4 CRR-4821-2025
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."
7. Hon'ble the apex Court again in the case of Basawaraj (Supra) in
paragraph No.12 has held as under:-
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation
may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be
applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation
on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory
provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore
that provision to relieve what it considers a distress
resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may
cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but
the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect
to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which
means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted
in such a situation. It has consistently been held that,
"inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered
while interpreting a statute."
8. In view of the aforesaid and from perusal of the delay application, it
appears that the petitioner has failed to explain day to day delay for non-
filing of this revision. Huge delay of 846 days is not properly explained by
the petitioner. Ignorance of law is not an excuse, therefore,
IA.No.21528/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay is
hereby rejected. Other applications are also stands rejected.
9. Consequently, the revision stands dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25868
5 CRR-4821-2025
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
