Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Deceased. Shambhusingh S/O Girwarsingh Thr. Lrs Motisingh And Others – Applicants
Versus
Deceased Tejsingh S/O Girwarsingh Thr. Lrs Lalsingh And Others – Respondents
Misc. Civil Case No. 1010 of 2020
Decided On : 26-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Shri Vinay Gandhi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Pourush Ranka, learned counsel

The court maintains that ignorance of pendency is not a sufficient cause to condone inordinate delay in seeking to set aside abatement when the applicant has failed to exercise due diligence or has provided a misleading account of the circumstances regarding their legal representation.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 22 Rules 3, 4, and 9 - Condonation of delay - Setting aside abatement - Application filed after substantial delay of 18 years from date of initial order - Plea of ignorance regarding pendency of proceedings cannot be accepted as sufficient cause where applicant fails to demonstrate continuous due diligence and acts with negligence - Court is duty-bound to examine the conduct of parties and whether delay could have been avoided by exercising normal care and caution. (Paras 13, 14, 18)

(B) Procedural Law - Duty of applicant - Burden of proof lies on the applicant to establish sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay - In the absence of cogent reasoning and in light of evidence showing prior professional engagement in the matter, the court will not exercise discretion to condone laches. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to set aside the abatement of an appeal that occurred several years prior, alongside applications for the inclusion of legal representatives. The primary justification provided for the significant delay in initiating these proceedings was an alleged lack of awareness regarding the pendency of the matter. The respondents contended that the application was filed as a tactical measure following a dispute over property possession, noting that the applicants had retained professional legal representation throughout the period, rendering the claim of ignorance invalid.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the applicants failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the extensive delay, specifically the period between the death of the parties and the pursuit of the current applications. The assertion of ignorance was found to be contradictory to the established facts, as the applicants had access to legal counsel who was informed of the case status. Furthermore, the court determined that the application was an attempt to interfere with settled possession and reopen long-concluded litigation.

Issues: The central questions addressed were whether the applicants had shown 'sufficient cause' for the condonation of an 18-year delay and whether the ignorance of pending judicial proceedings justified setting aside the order of abatement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an applicant asserts ignorance to explain an extraordinary delay, the court must consider the existence of professional representation and the overall conduct of the party. If the evidence suggests that the applicant was in contact with legal counsel and failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the plea for condonation must be rejected to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

Result: Applications for condonation of delay, setting aside of abatement, and bringing legal representatives on record are rejected.

Table of Content
1. background and procedural history of the abated second appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5)
2. parties' arguments regarding condonation of delay and restoration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. assessment of sufficient cause for long-delayed applications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
4. distinguishing precedents regarding professional diligence and lack of sufficient cause. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. final adjudication rejecting applications to set aside abatement. (Para 21)

ORDER :

1. Taken up for consideration I.A.No.2543/2020, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, I.A.No.2544/2020, an application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, I.A.No.2545/2020, an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC for bringing the LR's of respondent No.1 on record and also on the application, ie., MCC.No.1010/2020, which is filed under Order 22 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement of the Second Appeal No.78/1996, which was abated vide order dated 06/05/2011.

2. Short facts of the case are that civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was filed against judgment and decree dated 18/12/1995 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Mandsuar in Civil Regular Appeal No.42-A of 1989, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 30/8/1986 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class I, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.316/1986. Thus the second appeal was against concurrent findings of the two Courts.

3. For the clarity of facts original cause title between the parties (in the Second Appeal) is reproduced here in below :-

4 . The said second appeal was filed by predecessor of the present applicants. The appeal stood abated vide order dated 06/05/2011 on account of death of sole appellant and respondent No.1 because of the failure to bring legal heirs on record in time. The Court observed in the said order that the appeal stands abated with a further observation that matter may be listed as and when an application is filed on behalf of the appellant for bringing legal heirs on record. Thus the present application under Order 22 Rule 9 along with aforementioned applications have been filed for bringing legal heirs of appellant as well as respondent No.1 on record.

5. The appellant died on 10/06/2007, the order of abatement was passed by this Court on 06/05/2011, ie., almost after four years of the death of the appellant, interestingly the respondent No.1 had died on 8/10/2002 itself thus when the appeal was directed to be abated there was already a substantial period of nine years since the respondent No.1 has died. Even after the abatement of appeal in the year 2011 no steps were taken by the applicants for setting aside the abatement. Now by way of present application setting aside of abatement and revival of appeal is sought by asserting that the legal heirs of original appellant were not aware about the pendency of the proceedings of the second appeal. It has been submitted that it is only when the son of the deceased respondent No.1, Dayal Singh and his son Yogendra Singh made a complaint to police station Bhavgarh on 14/06/2020, the present applicants came to know about the pendency of the second appeal. It has been stated that when the said complaint was filed the incharge of police station Bhavgarh called the legal heirs of the deceased appellant ie., the present applicants and advised them to deliver the possession to legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1. Upon this the applicants contacted the local counsel Shri Narendra Gandhi on 25th July, 2020, who in turn informed the applicants about the pendency of second appeal in High Court in respect of the disputed land. The said local counsel then inquired about status of the second appeal on the official website of High Court and found that appeal has been abated vide order dated 06/05/2011. Thus the delay has been explained by pleading ignorance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document