The court ruled that a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitations, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.

Order :

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MJC No. 31/2024 dated 08.11.2024, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay was rejected and Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of CPC was dismissed.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents with regard to survey Nos. 116, 358, 535/1, 885, and 2324 total admeasuring 1.63 acres situated at Village Sukulpara Kharod, Patwari Circle No. 27, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa inter alia on the ground that the original owner of the property i.e. his grandmother willed out the property in his favour. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement. The matter was set for evidence of the petitioner on 26.06.2018 but he failed to appear; therefore, the Civil Suit No. 24A/2013 was dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for restoration of Civil Suit along with an application for condonation of delay and the same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II vide order dated 03.01.2020.

4. The petitioner preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal against the order dated 03.01.2020 on 05.04.2024 along with an application for condonation of delay. In the application, the petitioner assigned reasons for the delay that he suffered a paralytic attack and was under treatment of one Dr. Ramayan Singh. He annexed a prescription from the treating Doctor and a medical certificate. According to the medical certificate, the petitioner was under treatment by that Doctor from 20.12.2019 to 10.03.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner explained the cause of the delay properly. He would further submit that a medical prescription and certificate issued by the treating Doctor were produced along with the application for condonation of delay. He would also submit that the learned Court below ought to have taken a liberal view while dealing with the application for condonation of delay as the right of the petitioner was not decided on merits. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 5 SCC 321.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. He would submit that there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal; therefore, the learned Court below rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

8. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.06.2018. The petitioner moved an application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC before the learned trial Court along with an application for condonation of delay. According to the pleadings made in the writ petition, there was a delay of 210 days in filing such application. The application was rejected on 03.01.2020.

9. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of CPC against the order dated 03.01.2020 on 05.04.2024. There was a delay of four years and four months in filing the appeal. The petitioner stated that he suffered a paralytic attack on 11.11.2019. He was under the treatment of a Medical Officer from 20.12.2019 to 10.03.2024. It is further stated that when he became fit, he approached his counsel, who informed him that the application for restoration was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2020, and thereafter, he collected the certified copy of the order dated 03.01.2020 and preferred the appeal. A certificate was issued by the treating Doctor to the effect that the petitioner was under his treatment from 20.12.2019 to 10.03.2024.

10. The petitioner in the applicat