Chhattisgarh Sole Legal Heir Of Mst. Dokri, Chhattisgarh v. Through Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 MCC No. 396 of 2017 2025:CGHC:45497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 396 of 2017 1 - Mst. Dokri Now Dead Through Lrs Firan Singh S/o Kalasram, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Pahanda, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh M.P. Now Chhattisgarh Sole Legal Heir Of Mst. Dokri, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Through Chhattisgarh, 1.Deota Budhadeo Village Pahanda, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh M.P. Now Ad-Litem (a) Bhugol Singh S/o Chamru Gond, Aged About 39 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Pahanda, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh M.P. Now Chhattisgarh (b) Pratap Singh (Died) Through Lrs - As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 20- 10-2023 15-01-2025. 1(b)(i) - Pankhaya S/o Pratap Singh Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village- Pahanda, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2.State Of Madhya Pradesh Now Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raigarh,(C.G.) Chhattisgarh 3.Tahsildar, 4.(Deleted) Panbudi (Died) S/o Chamru Gond, aged about 45 years, R/o village Pahanda, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (M.P.) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 20-10-2023 And 15-01-2025. Raigarh, Sarangarh, District And ... Non-applicant/ Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1(a) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocate on (Bhugol Singh) behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL ) (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. This is an application for restoration of SA No.583 of 1995, which was dismissed as abated relating to appellant No.1 and was dismissed for 2 MCC No. 396 of 2017 want of prosecution relating to appellant No.2 vide order dated 12.12.2011. 2. Heard on I.A. No.1/2017, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant MCC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that second appeal no.583/1995 was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2011 as abated on behalf of appellant No.1/ applicant herein (Mst. Dokri) (now dead) and was dismissed for want of prosecution as no instructions was submitted by the counsel on behalf appellant No.2/ applicant herein (Firan Singh). He would further submit that since applicant (Mst. Dokri) had died and applicant (Firan Singh) was not in contact with his counsel as he is an illiterate villager and he contacted his counsel about 5-6 years later. Thus, delay occurred in filing the instant MCC is not intentional, rather, it is bonafide, therefore, delay in filing instant MCC may be condoned by allowing I.A. No.1/2017 and MCC may also be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1(a) (Bhugol Singh) would submit that instant MCC has been filed after whopping delay of 1948 days and no sufficient cause has been mentioned by the applicants. He would further submit that even if original applicant Mst. Dokri had died, despite that, her LRs ought to have contacted their counsel to know about the fate of the case, but, they were oblivious about their own case for more than 4–5 years, hence, cause shown to condone the delay is completely negligent act of applicants. In view of above, I.A. No.1/2017 may be rejected and the instant MCC for restoration of Second Appeal No.583/1995 may be dismissed. 3 MCC No. 396 of 2017 5. Learned State counsel extended his support to the contention made be respondent/ non-applicant No.1(a). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties; considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Second Appeal No.583/1995 was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2011, thereafter, instant MCC was filed on 16.5.2017 along with application for condonation of delay i.e., after delay of 1948 days. Cause shown by applicant is that original applicant/ her LRs are illiterate villagers, but, this reason itself is not sufficient to condone huge delay of 1948 days. It cannot be accepted that applicants were so negligent about the fate of their second appeal by not seeking any information from their counsel after the year 2011. In the instant case, second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2011 thereafter, original applicant/ her LRs went into deep slumber and had awaken after lapse of 1948 days by filing instant MCC along with application to condone the delay in filing MCC, in which also cause of delay shown in filing MCC is not found to be satisfactory. Further, after such a long period of 4-5 years, sometimes circumstances of suit property also get changed by selling, transferring, alienation, mortgage, etc., therefore, without showing sufficient cause to condone whopping delay of 1948 days, it cannot be held that delay is bonafide. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held in paragraphs 21.9(ix) and 21.10(x) as under :- “21.9.(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party 4 MCC No. 396 of 2017 relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance or justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10.(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.” 9. In another case, the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685 in paragraphs 25 and 26 has observed as under : - “25. We may state that even if the term ‘sufficient cause’ has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of ‘reasonableness’ as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the 5 MCC No. 396 of 2017 failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.” 10. In the light of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments and since no satisfactory reasons have been shown in I.A. No. 1/2017 to condone the delay of 1948 days in filing instant MCC, I do not find any good ground to allow I.A. No. 1/2017. 11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2017 is rejected. Consequently, the instant MCC is also dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Decision
12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.09.10 10:54:54 +0530