Shyam Narayan Ojha v. Nanhey Lal And 19 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Under challenge is the order dated 01.08.2025 whereby the appellate court has entertained an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C., arising from an order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Gram Nyayalaya, Patti, Pratapgarh, in Original Suit No.15 of 2023. that effect was made, nor any application The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, it is urged that an appeal against an order passed by the Gram Nyayalaya can be filed within a period of 30 days. Since the order was passed on 30.05.2025, 30 days period expired in June, 2025. Thus, the appeal filed was patently time-barred, yet no averment condonation of delay was filed. Hence, the entertainment of the appeal by the District Judge, Pratapgarh is patently erroneous. Secondly, it is submitted that in terms of Section 34 of the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, no appeal shall lie from the judgment and order passed by the Gram Nyayalay where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit, claim, or dispute does not exceed Rs.1,000/-. It is urged that in the instant case, the amount involved was less than Rs.1,000/- and therefore, no appeal would lie.

This aspect of the matter, according to learned counsel, has also not been considered by the appellate court. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, including the order dated 01.08.2025, a specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner to indicate 2 A227 No. 5600 of 2025 as to what report of the munsarim was placed on the memo of the appeal at the time of its filing. The same has not been brought on record nor it has been indicated whether the appeal was reported to be barred by limitation by the munsarim concerned. Yet, the same has been ignored by the court while entertaining the appeal. It has also not been demonstrated by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the order of the Gram Nyayalaya was passed on 30.05.2025, the courts thereafter were in summer recess and that the limitation would accordingly stand excluded, nor it has been shown when the certified copy was applied for and obtained, which would be relevant for computing limitation.

Prima facie, limitation and its assessment is the crux of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, however in the absence of the aforesaid details, it cannot be said that the appeal was time-barred merely on the premise that a limitation of 30 days is provided for assailing an order passed Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., especially in the light of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is turned down. As far as second submission regarding applicability of Section 34 of Gram Nyayalaya Act is concerned, it appears that the same may be applicable insofar as the final judgment and decree is concerned and not with regard to consideration of an appeal arising from an order passed on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. Hence, the second submission is also turned down. This Court finds that this petition filed is completely misconceived and the same is dismissed. September 17, 2025 Mahesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench