Patna High Court
Md. Hafiz vs Nazrin Fatma on 20 March, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.273 of 2021
======================================================
Md. Hafiz S/o Late Md. Jasimuddin Resident of Mohalla- Pakri, Near Masjid,
P.s.- Arrah Nawada, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
2. Asharfi Khatoon D/o Late md. Jasimuddin W/o Hasnat Khant, R/o Mohalla-
Qazi Mohalla, P.s.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur, Presently resident of
Mohalla- Qazi Mohalla, P.o. and P.s.- Maner, District- Patna
3. Shakrin Fatma D/o Late Md. Jasimuddin W/o Md. Idris, R/o Mohalla- Qazi
Mohalla, P.s.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur, Presently R/o Village-
Makhdumpur, P.o.- Barka Dumra, P.s.- Arrah Muffosil, District- Bhojpur
4. Mehndi Hassan S/o Late Birahi Mian R/o Village and P.o. and P.s.- Koilwar,
District- Bhojpur, presently R/o Mohalla- Dudhkatora, P.s.- Arrah Town,
District- Bhojpur
5. Md. Nayaz Ahmad S/o Late md. Jasimuddin R/o Mohalla- Qazi Mohalla,
P.s.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Md. Ataul Haque, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd. Gupta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the learned
District Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Title Appeal No. 01 o f 2020
whereby and whereunder the Title Appeal filed by the original
respondent no. 1 Nazrin Fatma has been admitted condoning the
delay of 599 days in preferring the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
original respondent had all along been knowing about the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.273 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
disposal of the Title Suit No. 569 of 2009 as the original
appellant and respondent no. 5 jointly filed the written
statement. Respondent no. 5 who was defendant no. 3 before the
learned trial court was the brother of original respondent no. 1.
The conduct of the original respondent and the submission made
by her regarding ignorance of the disposal of the Title Suit 569
of 2009 is not believable. Further she has not explained as to
how and from whom she came to know about the disposal of the
title suit and merely stated that when her nephew came to India
and enquired, she came to know about disposal of the title suit.
However, the delay has not been explained on day to day basis
and no exact date has been furnished when the knowledge came
to the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel submits that the
learned 1st Appellate Court did not take into consideration all
these facts and passed the order impugned which could not be
sustained. Learned counsel referred to the case of Mohd. Sahid
& Ors. Vs. Raziya Khanam (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. reported in
2019 (11) SCC 384, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that the order sheet and other materials place on record
clearly show that the appellants had full knowledge about the
proceedings of the Original Suit No. 591 of 1979 and also about
the disposal of the Writ Petition (C)No. 19550 of 1985 and the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.273 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
appellants have filed application for condonation of delay with
incorrect facts. Both the First Appellate Court and the High
Court recorded concurrent finding for the appellants filing the
application for condonation of delay with incorrect facts and on
this basis the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with
the orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court. Thus,
the learned counsel submits that the respondent has been grossly
negligent and has not been able to show valid reasons for not
preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, the
impugned order be set aside.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents
vehemently contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned
order. The learned First Appellate Court, considering the facts
and circumstances, passed a reasoned order. Learned 1st
Appellate Court has given its reasoning why it is condoning the
delay and the impugned order could not be faulted on this
ground. Learned counsel further submits that the original
respondent was a lady and she was dependent on her brother to
apprising her the progress of the case and once her brother did
not disclose about the disposal of the Title Suit, she has means
to check and verify the facts. The respondent has specifically
mentioned that after her nephew came to India she was
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.273 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
informed about disposal of the title suit and she immediately
proceeded for filing of the title appeal and delay has been
satisfactorily explained. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order.
5. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties
and also considering the facts and circumstances as it appears
after perusal of the record, I find that the learned 1st Appellate
Court has recorded its reasons for allowing the application for
condonation of delay and admitting the appeal. The learned 1st
Appellate Court arrived at a finding that the delay was not
intentional and considering the fact that appellant is a woman
who was completely dependent upon her advocate as well as
defendant no. 3 and delay might have taken place for the reason
that appellant was not having any knowledge, the impugned
order does not appear to be suffering from any infirmity. Hence,
the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 is affirmed. Unlike
Mohd. Sahid (supra) there is no material on record to show that
the appellant had full knowledge of the disposal of the Title Suit
No. 569 of 2009.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
7. However, learned Appellate Court is directed to
take up the matter and try to dispose it of as expeditiously as
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.273 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
possible preferably within a year from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order as both parties agree
to cooperate for disposal of the title appeal.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22.03.2025
Transmission Date N/A
