The court condoned the 330-day delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural delays and acknowledging the appellants' lack of knowledge and proper legal advice.

JUDGMENT :

DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, j.

Heard on I.A No.5430/2023 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.

1. As per I.A No.5430/2023 the applicants have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Jawad in civil suit No.RCS-A/22/2014 dated 10.02.2022 wherein the appellants suit was partially decreed.

2. The appellants were in possession of suit land since 23.10.1982 suit was filed by the appellant for the relief of specific performance of contract and alternatively for the relief of declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession and declaring the disputed executed sale-deed void, and for permanent injunction that was dismissed.

3. As per the law the appeal ought to have been preferred before their Court within a period of 90 days excluding the period of obtaining the copy of judgment and decree however, they were not having the knowledge of passing of judgment and decree. They came to know about the judgment and decree when they got the notice from the Revenue Court, Jawad under the proceedings of Section 250 of the M.P Land Revenue Code,1959 for the possession.

4. The appellants are also not educated and well conversant with the law and were not properly adviced that there is need to challenge the said judgment and decree however, later on when they came to know that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is not proper and legal, question of law is involved in this case, appeal is required to be filed before this Court. Then this appeal has been filed with the delay of 330 days. The appeal is bonafide so, the delay be condoned in filing this appeal.

5. The respondents in their reply has stated that the appellants were having the knowledge of limitation and decree, it is not correct to say that appellants were not properly advised. Appeal is filed after inordinate delay there is no ground, no sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay. The appellants have not presented any sufficient cause to file the appeal within limitation hence, the application be dismissed.

Heard.

6. The impugned judgment was passed on 10.02.2023 and the appeal was presented on 12.07.2023 before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are villagers and their suit was partially decreed with the direction to the defendant that by himself or through representatives shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed land without following due course of law.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Raheem Shah and Ors. Vs. Govind Singh and Ors. SC/0829/2023.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in this case there is an inordinate delay of approx. 01 year and there are no sufficient reasons for the delay in that situation the delay cannot be condoned as routine matter. The delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as matter of right, the Court does not have unlimited powers to condone the delay. Hence, submitted that the application for condonation of delay be dismissed and consequently, the appeal also be dismissed.

9. Counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of Shaligram vs. Nagar Palika Vidisha 2004(II) MPJR 170, Union of India vs. M/S Diamond Cements 2001(3) M.P.L.J 371 , Arvind Kumar Nitin Kumar Memorial Trust vs. Nimad Vanita Wishwa Khandwa 2004 (II) MPJR 176, P.K Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and another AIR 1998 SC 2276, Lanka Venkateswarlu (dead) by Lrs. vs. State of A.P and others 2011(3) M.P.L.J 135 .

Heard both the parties and perused the record.

10. The impugned judg