Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Mata Prasad and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ajmer Singh and Ors. – Respondents
M.P. No. 1913 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2021
Delay Condonation - M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 115/116, Section 44(1), Section 5 of the Limitation Act - [115/116, 44(1), 5] - The court discussed the principles for condoning the delay and the obligation upon the Court while dealing with the application of condonation of delay. It highlighted the liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, the elastic nature of 'sufficient cause', and the need to consider the conduct, behaviour, and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. The court emphasized the importance of substantial justice, the distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration, and the need for a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system. The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer, and restored the appeal to its original number.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed questioning the legality, validity, and propriety of the order affirming the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioners had filed an application for correction in the revenue records, and their appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. They subsequently moved an application for restoration of appeal, which was rejected by the authorities. The petition challenged the rejection, citing the delay condonation principles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reason assigned in the application for condoning the delay was sufficient, and the authorities had not appreciated the same in a proper manner. It allowed the petition, set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer, and restored the appeal to its original number.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the application for restoration of appeal and the condonation of delay. The petitioners challenged the rejection, citing the delay condonation principles and the authorities' failure to appreciate the reasons for delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, the elastic nature of 'sufficient cause', and the need to consider the conduct, behaviour, and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. It highlighted the importance of substantial justice, the distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration, and the need for a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the orders passed by the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer were set aside, and the appeal was restored to its original number.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
1. None for the other respondents, despite served, have not contested the matter before the Court below.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Collector affirming the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 04.01.2020.
3. As per the facts of the case, respondent No. 1 somewhere in the year 2004 filed an application under Section 115/116 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code, 1959') before the Tahsildar, Tahsil Devsar, District Singrauli for correction in the revenue records with respect of the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 452 total area 2.80 acre, Gram Sajaapani, Tahsil Devsar, District Singrauli.
4. After filing the application, the case was registered by the Tahsildar and report of Patwari was called for and on the basis of the said report, the application was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure-P/1) although the present petitioners were not given any notice in the said proceeding.
5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Tahsildar, an appeal was preferred under Section 44(1) of the Code, 1959, before the Sub Divisional Officer along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the appeal was barred by time. During the pendency of appeal, on 27.07.2017, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners and also on behalf of the respondents, the appeal was, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution by the Sub Divisional Officer.
6. Thereafter, on 29.06.2019, the petitioners moved an application under Section 35(3) of the Code, 1959 for restoration of appeal or recall of the order dated 27.07.2017. It is stated in the application that the petitioners are residents of Gram Dasauti, which is a distant place and they could not appear on each and every hearing of the case, but the counsel engaged by them, used to appear on their behalf. It is further stated that on 27.07.2017, their counsel was busy before other Court, as a result of which, he could not appear in the case and appeal was dismissed in default.
7. When the petitioners contacted their counsel, he informed the petitioners that he has stopped appearing in the appeal and thereafter the petitioners inquired about the status of the appeal and then only they came to know that their appeal had already been dismissed in default whereas they were interested to prosecute the same.
8. An application for restoration of appeal was filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act saying that there is a delay in filing the application, therefore, the same may be condoned and in the application they have stated the sufficient cause. However, their application was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer mentioning therein that since last two dates nobody appeared and the application for condonation of delay has been moved after a period of two years taking the ground of non-appearance of the counsel and not communicating the petitioners about his conduct as he stopped appearing in the case. The restoration application was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer holding that the ground mentioned in the application does not constitute any sufficient cause. Thereafter, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was further assailed before the Collector, who in turn, vide order dated 10.02.2020 has also rejected their appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer holding that the reason assigned in the application does not constitute any sufficient cause.
9. Challenging the order passed by the Collector, this petition has been preferred saying that both the authorities have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and erroneously observed that the explanation given by the petitioners for condoning the delay was not sufficient and the same
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
The court ruled that a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitations, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and not denying p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
