Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 437 (MP)

BASHIR KHAN v. JAMILA BI

2019-06-21

VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
ORDER : – Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J. B. Mehta, learned counsel for respondents. With consent both the petitions are heard finally. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by order dated 12-1-2019 whereby learned 8th Addl. District Judge, Indore has allowed the application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act along with the appeal by the respondents. 2. Facts of the case taken from Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2019, in short, are as under : (i) The present petitioner/s being the plaintiffs filed civil suits against the respondents/defendants for eviction and arrears of rent. By judgment and decree dated 9-2-2018, the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. (ii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendants/ respondents preferred first appeal with a delay of 224 days. The defendants filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act contending that they are illiterate and rustic villagers and working as Mechanic by profession hence, they do not know about the provisions of law and limitation, therefore, they could not file the appeal within time. The aforesaid application was strongly opposed by the plaintiff by submitting that the defendants had knowledge about the judgment and decree because they were appearing in the execution proceedings. (iii) Learned Addl. District Judge vide order dated 12-1-2019 has condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for final arguments. Hence, the present revision before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the respondents have failed to explain the delay of 224 days by giving any sufficient explanation. They obtained the certified copy on 28-8-2018 hence, the appeal ought to have been filed on 26-4-2018. They were in regular contact with their counsel appeared before the Executing Court and thus, the ignorance of law cannot be execused, therefore, the delay is not bona fide. Learned Addl. District Judge has mechanically condoned the delay. They obtained the certified copy on 28-8-2018 hence, the appeal ought to have been filed on 26-4-2018. They were in regular contact with their counsel appeared before the Executing Court and thus, the ignorance of law cannot be execused, therefore, the delay is not bona fide. Learned Addl. District Judge has mechanically condoned the delay. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. District Magistrate, 2012(3) M.P.L.J. 346 ; and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M. P. vs. Ranjana Yogi, 2014(4) M.P.L.J. 1 ; and judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sangeeta vs. Narayan, (Civil Revision No. 181/2015 decided on 21-6-2016). 4. On the other hand, Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the plaintiff and defendants are closed relatives. There is no landlord-tenant relationship between them. Learned trial Court has wrongly decreed the suit. The respondents are having prima facie case in their favour and hope for success in the appeal. The respondents are illiterate persons and they were not aware of the provisions of law. They were totally dependent on advice of their counsel and they contested the suit on merit. Learned Addl. District Judge took the lenient view and rightly condoned the delay and now, the appeal has been fixed for final arguments. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ram Sumiran vs. DDC : AIR 1985 SC 606 ; and State of U.P. vs. Amar Nath Yadav, 2014(3) M.P.L.J. 476 . In view of this, he prayed that no case for interference is made out and the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 5. There is a decree of eviction against the respondents and after the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff initiated the execution proceedings against them. After receipt of notice in execution proceedings, the respondents made a contact with their counsel and appeared in the execution proceedings. After taking opinion from their counsel, they preferred appeals before the Addl. District Judge with the delay of 224 days. The respondents are illiterate persons and Mechanic by profession, therefore, they had no knowledge of provisions of law of limitation. 6. After taking opinion from their counsel, they preferred appeals before the Addl. District Judge with the delay of 224 days. The respondents are illiterate persons and Mechanic by profession, therefore, they had no knowledge of provisions of law of limitation. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao, (2002) 3 SCC 195 , has held that the expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done. In the case reported in Basavalingappa vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 897 , the Apex Court has held that the expression “sufficient cause” in section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. 7. In the recent judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu vs. Special Dy. Collector, 2017 (8) SCALE 61 , it has been held that the Court should adopt a justice oriented approach where no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is attributable to the party seeking condonation of delay. 8. In the present case, learned Addl. District Judge has already condoned the delay and admitted the appeals for final hearing in the month of February, 2019. Admittedly, the respondents contested the suit on merit and thereafter preferred the appeals. For filing the appeals, Court-fees is required to be paid and after taking opinion from the counsel, some time delay is caused for filing the appeal. After receipt of notice in the execution proceedings, the respondents made a contact with their counsel and decided to file appeal. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Addl. District Judge has not committed any error while allowing the application for condonation of delay. Hence, no case for interference is made out. 9. Consequently, these revisions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.