Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajnish Son Of Ratanlal Soni Trhough His ... vs Scindhiya Devsthan Trust (Regd) Head ... on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30455
1 MP-5838-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5838 of 2025
RAJNISH SON OF RATANLAL SONI TRHOUGH HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS. DURGA
Versus
SCINDHIYA DEVSTHAN TRUST (REGD) HEAD OFFICE AT
JAIVILAS PALAC GWALIOR (M.P.) MANAGER ARPIT JOSHI
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This Court has carefully considered the material available on record,
the impugned orders of the Courts below, and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. It is observed that on 02.03.2020, the respondent herein had filed a
civil suit RCS A No. 69/2021 (old No. RCS A 119/2020) before the Court of
II Civil Judge Class-II, Ujjain, seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of
rent in respect of a shop situated in the campus of Gopal Mandir, Ujjain
against the deceased Shri Ratanlal Soni. The Trial Court, after proceeding ex
parte, passed a judgment and decree on 21.06.2022 against Shri Ratanlal
Soni in Civil Suit No. 69-A/2021.
3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay. Vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30455
2 MP-5838-2025
order dated 05.04.2025, the learned Trial Court dismissed both the
applications, observing that bare perusal of Article 123 of the Limitation Act,
1963, prescribed a limitation period of thirty days from the date of the decree
or from the date when summons were not duly served, for filing an
application to set aside an ex parte decree. Failure to file such application
within the prescribed period, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay,
rendered the application liable to dismissal. As per the Explanation to the
provision, substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, was not deemed to be due service. In the present case, the
applicant himself admitted having been served notice through registered post
hence, the service was held proper. The applicant's plea of ignorance of the
proceedings was found neither reliable nor bona fide in the absence of
corroborative material. Once service by registered post was effected, it was
presumed that the defendant was aware of the proceedings unless proved
otherwise. Mere assertion of ignorance was insufficient, and the defendant
was required to show sufficient cause for the delay in seeking to set aside the
decree.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order
XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay,
before the Court of IV Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ujjain, in Miscellaneous
Civil Appeal No. 74/2025, arising out of the case titled Rajneesh v. Scindia
Devasthan Trust. The Appellate Court, vide its order, upheld the finding of
the Trial Court and observed that although the Court should generally adopt a
lenient approach while considering applications for condonation of delay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30455
3 MP-5838-2025
under the Limitation Act,1963 and decide matters on merits, in the present
case, the petitioner had overwritten the date of delivery in the endorsement of
the impugned order with an intent to limit the period of appeal. The medical
prescription produced also did not satisfactorily explain the appellant's
illness. It was further observed that the appellant did not approach the Court
with clean hands and, therefore, was not entitled to the Court's leniency.
5. The petitioner has now preferred the present miscellaneous petition
being aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Order IX Rule 13
of the CPC and the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below. It is
contended that on 05.01.2021, when the counsel for the plaintiff informed
the Trial Court about the death of defendant Shri Ratanlal Soni, the Court
ought to have conducted an enquiry into the factum of death before
proceeding further. However, no such enquiry was made, and the Trial Court
proceeded ex parte and delivered a judgment and decree against a dead
person, which is a nullity in the eyes of law.
6. It is further submitted that even during the hearing of the application
under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, it was specifically argued that the decree
had been passed against a deceased person; however, despite such
submission, the Trial Court dismissed the application on 05.04.2025 without
considering this legal position. It is further urged that the Executing Court,
while passing its order dated 06.03.2025, failed to appreciate that the ex
parte judgment and decree dated 21.06.2022 were passed against a person
who had died 21 years prior to the said decree, rendering the entire
proceedings a nullity from inception.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30455
4 MP-5838-2025
7. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Amba Bai and Others v. Gopal and Others, (2001) 5 SCC
726, wherein it was held that a decree passed against a dead person is a
nullity and cannot be executed. Reliance has also been placed on Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2
SCC 107, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the
expression "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act should be given a
liberal interpretation.
8. Upon due consideration of the record and the findings recorded by
both the Courts below, this Court finds that the petitioner has overwritten the
date of delivery in the endorsement of the impugned order and failed to
produce sufficient medical evidence to justify the delay. The petitioner has
not approached the Court with clean hands, and therefore, does not deserve
any indulgence of leniency in the matter of condonation of delay. The
applications filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and Section 5 of the
Limitation Act were clearly barred by limitation, and the findings of the
Courts below do not warrant any interference.
9. Upon perusal of the record, it is observed that the learned appellate
Court, vide Letter No. 443 dated 25.07.2025, had summoned the explanation
of the Chief Pratilipikar, Shri Devendra Joshi. In compliance, the said officer
submitted his explanation on the same date through his letter dated
25.07.2025. In the said explanation, it was stated that the certified copy of
the order book pertaining to the period from 20.02.2025 to 05.04.2025, in the
matter titled Rajneesh vs. Scindia Devasthanam Trust, was prepared by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30455
5 MP-5838-2025
concerned subdivision upon receipt of Copy Application Form No. 6092
dated 11.04.2025 and was duly delivered to the applicant on 15.04.2025. The
record of the same is available in the CIS software of the copy subdivision. It
was further mentioned that the alleged overwriting had not been done by any
person belonging to the copy section.
10. The learned appellate Court, upon examination of the record,
rightly observed that the endorsement on the aforesaid copy appears to have
been tampered with by overwriting the date. It was found that forgery had
been committed by a party concerned in the case, apparently with the
intention to mislead the Court by inserting forged dates in the endorsement
so as to obtain an order which otherwise would not have been passed.
11. This Court finds that the petitioner has not approached the Court
with clean hands and has resorted to fabrication of documents in order to
bring the matter within the limitation period. The allegation was so serious
that an order was made by the learned appellate court to write a letter to the
Station House Officer, Madhavnagar Police Station, for registration of a
criminal case and investigation into the said matter. This shows the mala-
fides on behalf of the petitioner while filling an application under section 5
Limitation Act, 1963 to bring his application within limitation.
12. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of
Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 24 : 2012 SCC
OnLine SC 329 at page 168, Hon'ble apex court held that:-
"24. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30455
6 MP-5838-2025
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."
13. Moreover, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur
Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 450 : (2014) 1
SCC (Civ) 713 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 595 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 847 at
page 655Hon'ble Apex court held that :-
"12. In G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 2 SCC 142]
, held that:-
14. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its
own special facts. However, the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 must
receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally
delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of
justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is
imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay."
14. The Court finds that the case laws relied upon by the petitioner,
including Amba Bai and Others v. Gopal and Others, (2001) 5 SCC 726, and
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and
Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, are inapplicable to the present case, as they
pertain to materially different factual circumstances and therefore do not
support the petitioner's claim as in the present case the petitioner has not
approached the Courts with clean hands and in order to bring home the
limitation he has went to the extent of manipulating and fabricating the dates
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30455
7 MP-5838-2025
mentioned in the certified copy of the order dated 05.04.2025. Thus, looking
to the conduct of the petitioner the said judgments is of no avail.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no error,
illegality, or perversity in the setting aside the application of petitioner by the
learned Courts below.
16. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
akanksha
