[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan vs Ramsingh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21999
1 SA-2498-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 2498 of 2025
NARAYAN AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMSINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Garima Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent 3.
ORDER
Heard on IA no.4591/2026, which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the second appeal.
2. Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by 419 days.
3. Supporting the averments made in the application, learned counsel
for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree was passed
on 27.04.2024 by the District Judge, Harsud, District Khandwa affirming the
judgment and decree dated 13.07.2023 passed by 1st Civil Judge Junior
Division, Harsud, District Khandwa whereby civil suit filed by the appellants
for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed. He submits
that when the appellants got the information about dismissal of civil appeal
through their counsel in the month of August, and as they were not aware
about the law of limitation and as soon as they got the certified copy of the
judgment and decree and collected all the documents and manged the funds
as also the Court fee required to be deposited for filing the appeal, they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21999
2 SA-2498-2025
contacted to the counsel at Jabalpur and filed the second appeal without any
further delay. He submits that in these circumstances sufficient cause
mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be considered liberally
and delay occurred in filing of the second appeal deserves to be condoned.
With these submissions, he prays for allowing the application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
5. Apparently against the impugned judgment and decree dated
27.04.2024, second appeal has been filed before this Court on 26.09.2025 on
the basis of a certified copy delivered to the appellants on 12.08.2025.
Nowhere in the application it has been mentioned that the counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants, who was also the counsel before the Trial Court,
did not inform the appellants about decision/dismissal of the civil appeal on
27.04.2024.
6. As has been narrated above, it is also not mentioned in the
application as to on which date the appellants came to know about impugned
judgment and decree.
7. It appears that the application filed by the appellants do not disclose
the sufficient reason for condonation of long delay of 419 days and is also
very sketchy.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21999
3 SA-2498-2025
further been followed recently in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao
vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others AIR 2022 SC 332.
9. As such, in absence of reasonable or proper explanation of delay of
419 days in filing of the second appeal, IA no.4591/2026 deserves to be and
is hereby dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the second appeal is also dismissed.
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
