SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, and Vishal Mishra, J.
Rampal & Others v. Deendayal & Others
Writ Appeal No. 1118 of 2022 (Jabalpur): against the order
dated 5.4.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 211/2019;
Decided on 6.4.2023

Advocates:
Ram Sharan Rathore for appellants; S. S. Chauhan, Government Advocate for respondents No. 9 to 11/State.

Headnote:

Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- condonation of delay -- appeal preferred by writ petitioners without application for condoning delay dismissed by Commissioner -- writ Court permitted writ petitioners to file application for condonation of delay with payment of cost to respondents -- impugned -- held -- appellants have opportunity to oppose condonation of delay -- substantial justice done by ordering payment of cost to appellants -- no good ground to entertain appeal. [Paras 3 & 4

ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 &&/kkjk 5 && foyac dh ekQh && fjV ;kphx.k }kjk foyac ekQ fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu ds fcuk izLrqr vk;qDr }kjk [kkfjt && fjV U;k;ky; us fjV ;kphx.k dks] izR;FkhZx.k dks ifjO;; lanÙk djus ij] foyac dh ekQh ds fy, vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vuqKk nh && vk{ksfir && vfHkfuèkkZfjr && vihykFkhZx.k dks foyac dh ekQh dk fojks/k djus dk volj gksxk && vihykFkhZx.k dks ifjO;; lanÙk djus dk vkns'k dj lkjoku U;k; fd;k x;k && vihy xzg.k djus ds fy, dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj ughaA ¼iSjk 3 ,oa 4

ORDER

1. For the reasons assigned, I.A.No.12130 of 2022 - an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. The delay is hereby condoned.

2. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Petition No.211 of 2019. In terms whereof, the writ petition was entertained on the ground that the authority i.e. the Upper Commissioner, Shahdol has rejected the appeal filed by the writ petitioners therein on the ground of delay.

3. That the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners was dismissed by the Commissioner on the ground that the appeal was barred by the limitation. No application was filed by the writ petitioners for condoning the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances involved, the learned Single Judge directed that the writ petitioners be permitted to file an application for condonation of delay and the same may be considered by the appellate authority. However, the same was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.14,000/- to the respondents. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed.

4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is to permit the writ petitioners to file an application seeking condonation of delay. The appellants herein have very well an opportunity to oppose the condonation of delay. Not with standing the same, in order to do equity in the matter, the learned Single Judge has also ordered payment of Rs.14,000/- to the appellants herein and substantial justice has been done. We do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal.

5. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top