MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, GWALIOR BENCH
M.C. GARG, J.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Perfect Sales, Vineet Market, Jayendraganj, Lashker – Respondent
First Appeal No. 262 of 2007
Decided On : 10-8-2015
Condonation of Delay - Civil Procedure - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - 96 - 5
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The appeal was drastically barred by 296 days. The appellants sought condonation of delay, citing the procedural red-tape and following the requisite procedure as the reason for the delay. The respondents opposed the application, emphasizing the need for a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' negligence and failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay warranted dismissal of the appeal. The court cited precedents emphasizing the need for a bona fide effort and reasonable explanation for delay, especially for government departments.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. It emphasized the need for a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, especially for government bodies.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the first appeal.
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants/state aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2006 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 2B of 2006, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 3,12,681/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum was decreed.
2. Heard I.A. No. 16288 of 2007, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. The appeal is drastically barred by 296 days.
4. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay. The facts as disclosed in the application by the appellant are as under:-
(1) That the present First appeal is being preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2006 passed by the Learned trial court namely Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior (MP).
(2) That, the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2006 was applied for on 23.09.2006, which was delivered on 31.10.2006.
(3) That, on receipt of the certified copy of the said impugned judgment and decree on 31.10.2006, the concerned Govt. Pleader who was conducting the case in the trial Court, sent his opinion vide his letter dated 30.11.2006 to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Division Bhind enclosing therewith the certified copy of the said judgment and decree dated 20.09.2006.
(4) On receipt of the said opinion along with the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2006 from the concerned Govt. Pleader, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Bhind wrote letters to the Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D. E & M B Sub-Division Bhind (who was the Officer-in-charge of the case in the Learned trial court) from time to time to make available the requisite records for obtaining the sanction from the Govt. to file appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the said impugned judgment and decree dated 20.09.2006. Ultimately on receipt of some records from the Officer-in-charge of the case, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Bhind written letter on 2.3.2007 to the Secretary Government of M.P. Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Bhopal as well as to the Government of M.P. Public Works Department, Bhopal for granting permission to file the appeal against the said impugned judgment and decree and also for appointing him Officer-in-charge of the case for filing the said appeal along with this letter, the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree as well as the opinion of the Govt. Pleader was also enclosed and sent.
(5) Ultimately, the Law Department vide its letter dated 11.07.2007 granted sanction to file appeal before this Hon'ble Court along with application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. This was sent to the Additional Advocate General at Gwalior as well as to the Collector, Bhind. On receipt whereof, the Collector, District Bhind as well as the office of Additional Advocate General at Gwalior wrote letters to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Bhind (Officer-in-charge of the case) to contact the Additional Advocate General at Gwalior for preparation and filing of the appeal against the said impugned judgment and decree of the Learned trial court. This letter was written by the Collector, Bhind on 24.07.2007.
(6) In the meantime, another certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was applied for, which was delivered on 3.08.2007.
(7) On receipt of the said letter from the Collector Bhind as well as from the Additional Advocate General, Gwalior, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division Bhind (Officer-in-charge of the case) and thereafter contacted the office of Addl. Advocate General at Gwalior on 24.9.2007. The Addl. Advocate General at Gwalior thereafter handed over the case to the Government Advocate concerned for preparation and filing of the appeal along with application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(8) Accordingly the co
Hariyana vs. Chandramani and Others
Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited
State of M.P. and Another vs. Abdul Gani
Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.