Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Devigiri Goswami S/o Balbhadra Giri – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 2114 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Purnendra Khichariya.
For the Respondent: Mandawi Bharadwaj.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for the condonation of delay due to the applicant's age and health.
Headnote:
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - The revisional court allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition, considering the age and health of the applicant - The court emphasized that the expression 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The respondent No. 4 filed an application under Sections 144 and 145 of the Cr.P.C. regarding ancestral property, which was previously dismissed. The respondent later sought to condone the delay in filing a revision petition, claiming ignorance of the prior order due to age and health issues.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay was not due to deliberate negligence and allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the revision petition could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considering the circumstances of the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the age and health of the applicant, along with the absence of deliberate negligence, justified the condonation of delay, aligning with the principle of advancing substantial justice.
Result: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of BNSS is rejected.
ORDER :
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. challenging the impugned order dated 05.06.2024, wherein the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the revisioner respondent No. 4 and further issue appearance, reply and final argument dated 06.08.2024.
3. Facts of the case is that the respondent No. 4 has filed an application under Section 144,145 of the Cr.P.C. and seeking injunction against the petitioners and his family members. The petitioners and the respondents have their ancestral property at village Dharashiv, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, bearing khasra no. 290, 245, 182, 2134, 2520/2, 2529, 2531, 2522/1, 2522/2,2523,2524, 2525, 2528/1, 2528/2, 2619, 2623, 2624 total Rakba 9.94 acre and khasra n?. 666, 1956/1, 2519, 2520/1, 2526, 2527, 245 total khasra no. 07 Rakba 1.56 acre and for that reason the respondent no. 4 earlier filed an application under section 144, 145 of Cr.P.C. and stated that the petitioners and his family members were trying to capture the property for that reason to maintain peace and receiver over the property made the application.
4. That, the S.D.O. has called out the records of the revenue land and also demanded the status report of the present property from the S.H.O. Pamgarh dated 02.12.2013, wherein it is said by the S.H.O. that the above property mention was in the name of Balbhadra Giri and Kaushalya Bai who where the father and mother of the petitioners and the respondent no. 4 and also give a report in which clearly mentioned that the land was the ancestral property in the revenue records and the name of the father Balbhadra Giri was mentioned and for that reason the property was the joint family property. On dated 05.12.2013 the revenue court has given the order that the crops which were cultivated over the land is to be given on Supurdnama to the village Kotwar namely Mil Ram that the issue has been settled between petitioners and the respondent no. 4 the S.D.O. has conducted the enquiry and also filed an affidavit from petitioners and respondent no. 4 and other concerning parties who knowing facts of the case after scrutinize the evidences has passed the order dated 30.03.2022, wherein stated that the petitioners wherein the peaceful possession and no breach under section 144, 145 of Cr.P.C. was done by the petitioners and the application filed by the respondent no. 4 was dismissed.
5. The petitioners and his family member were surprisingly shocked that the revisioner (respondent no. 4) has served summon appear before the Session Court the summon which was received to the petitioners on dated 18.06.2024 to appear in the revision case no. 29/2024 and the matter is fixed hearing on 09.07.2024.
6. The petitioners were appeared on 09.07.2024 before the learned revisional court wherein after enquiry found that the respondent no. 4 has earlier filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in which the notices were issued to the petitioners and the other interested party i.e. family member. The petitioners raised oral objection that the matter was earlier heard and till today they were not disturbing the property although the matter was heard without giving opportunity to them and allowed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the reason mentioned were not heard.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the respondent no. 4 has filed an application under section 144, 145 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been rejected by the respondent no. 3 on dated 30.03.2022, after that the respondent no. 4 was knowing this fact, although he has suppressed and stated that the counsel has not informed to him is not correct because it is in the knowledge of the respondent no. 4 from the very beginning because the respondent no. 4 was working in SECL and at the time of passing of the order by the S.D.O. dated 30.03
