[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Madhu Singhal vs State Bank Of India on 13 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1380
1 MP-6558-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 13 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6558 of 2023
SMT. MADHU SINGHAL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shiv Shankar Bansal - Advocate for petitioners.
None for respondents- defendants though served.
ORDER
The petitioners, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, have filed the present miscellaneous
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated
14th September 2023 passed by the 9th District Judge, Gwalior, in Unregistered
Application No. 30790 of 2023.
2. A few facts giving rise to present petition, as narrated therein, are that
petitioners filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against
respondents No. 1 and 2. The suit was based on the assertion that the petitioners,
being the wives of late Shri Govardhan Das Singhal's sons, are the legal heirs of
the property in question, which was allegedly bequeathed by the late Shri
Govardhan Das Singhal through a Will. The petitioners apprehended that
Respondent No. 2, by attempting to open a bank locker, might destroy the Will,
which was supposedly kept inside the locker, to claim a share in the property. The
petitioners filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for a
temporary injunction, seeking to prevent Respondents No. 1 and 2 from opening
the bank locker until the suit is decided. The trial court, however, dismissed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1380
2 MP-6558-2023
application by order dated 25th July 2023. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an
appeal before the appellate court under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of CPC, but there was a
delay of three days in filing the appeal. The petitioners filed an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking the condonation of the three-day delay.
However, the appellate court dismissed the application and rejected the appeal as
barred by limitation by its order dated 14th September 2023, which has led to the
filing of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that the impugned order dated 14th
September 2023, as well as the order dated 25th July 2023, are illegal, erroneous,
and without jurisdiction. They argue that the appellate Court failed to adopt a
liberal approach in condoning the delay of just three days in filing the appeal,
despite the petitioners showing sufficient cause for the delay. It is further
submitted that learned trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order
39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, especially considering that they are the legal heirs of
the deceased and have a legitimate claim over the property in the disputed locker.
If the bank locker is permitted to be opened without their presence, and without
preparing an inventory, they will suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be
compensated by way of costs. Petitioners also highlight the risk of respondent
No.2 destroying the Will that was kept in the locker, which would cause
irreversible harm to their legal rights. It is further argued that a prima facie case
exists in their favour, and balance of convenience is also in their favour.
Therefore, the trial Court's dismissal of their application was unjust and merits
reconsideration.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of
the impugned orders and the documents available on record, this Court is of the
opinion that the delay in filing the appeal was minimal, and the appellate Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1380
3 MP-6558-2023
should have considered the petitioners' application for condonation of delay more
liberally, in line with the principles established in various legal precedents,
including the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107], where the Supreme Court
emphasized a liberal approach in the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, especially when the delay is minimal and no deliberate negligence
is shown and also in the judgment of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
[(1998) 7 SCC 123], where it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court
should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays, especially in the interest of
ensuring justice.
5. In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to remand the matter
to the 9th District Judge, Gwalior, with direction to decide the appeal on merits,
in accordance with law. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of three days deserves to be and is
hereby set aside in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the
aforementioned precedents. The 9th District Judge, Gwalior, is directed to
consider the appeal in accordance with law, on merits.
6. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of. No order as to
costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
