1. Revision against order condoning 12-year delay in filing first appeal under Section 96 CPC — Condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vivek Jain, J.
Ramrati – Applicant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Civil Revision No. 47 of 2017
Decided On : 17-06-2026
Important Points
A 12-year delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned when the party had full knowledge of proceedings but exhibited gross negligence. Such failure by State functionaries to safeguard public land constitutes a breach of the Public Trust Doctrine, warranting potential disciplinary and criminal action.
Subject
Civil Law - Limitation and Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 9 Rule 7 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 12 years in filing a first appeal against an ex-parte decree - Where the respondent was duly served, actively participated, and successfully applied under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside an earlier ex-parte order, but subsequently stopped appearing before the trial court, the plea of ignorance regarding the fate of the suit is untenable - Such an extensive delay reflects the highest level of negligence and an utter abdication of duty by government functionaries - Condonation of such delay by the Appellate Court in a mechanical manner is erroneous as rights crystallize over time. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Public Trust Doctrine - State as trustee of natural resources - Land is a resource held by the State in trust for the common citizen - State functionaries are under a legal obligation to preserve and protect property held in trust for the public - Utter negligence in pursuing legal proceedings involving government land amounts to a breach of public trust - Concerned authorities are entitled to initiate departmental and criminal action against negligent officers under Sections 405 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. (Paras 15, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed and, after being initially rejected, was remanded by the Appellate Court for adjudication on merits. The defendant respondent appeared after remand and obtained an order setting aside ex-parte proceedings. However, the respondent's counsel ceased appearing in February 2004, leading to an ex-parte decree in June 2004. The respondent filed an appeal against the decree 12 years later, and the Appellate Court condoned the delay.
Findings of Court:
The reason assigned for the 12-year delay was neither plausible nor constitute sufficient cause. Given the respondent's prior active participation and the administrative machinery available to the State, the failure to pursue the case for over a decade was a result of gross negligence.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court was justified in condoning a 12-year delay in filing an appeal when the respondent had full knowledge of the suit's pendency but abandoned the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A party with full knowledge of the pendency of a suit who stops appearing cannot later claim ignorance to justify an extraordinary delay in filing an appeal. Mechanical condonation of such a long delay is impermissible when it results from the gross negligence of public servants, which further constitutes a breach of the Public Trust Doctrine regarding the protection of public resources.
Result: Revision allowed; impugned order of condonation of delay set aside and the appeal rejected as barred by limitation.
(B) Public Trust Doctrine - State as trustee of natural resources - Land is a resource held by the State in trust for the common citizen - State functionaries are under a legal obligation to preserve and protect property held in trust for the public - Utter negligence in pursuing legal proceedings involving government land amounts to a breach of public trust - Concerned authorities are entitled to initiate departmental and criminal action against negligent officers under Sections 405 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. (Paras 15, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed and, after being initially rejected, was remanded by the Appellate Court for adjudication on merits. The defendant respondent appeared after remand and obtained an order setting aside ex-parte proceedings. However, the respondent's counsel ceased appearing in February 2004, leading to an ex-parte decree in June 2004. The respondent filed an appeal against the decree 12 years later, and the Appellate Court condoned the delay.
Findings of Court:
The reason assigned for the 12-year delay was neither plausible nor constitute sufficient cause. Given the respondent's prior active participation and the administrative machinery available to the State, the failure to pursue the case for over a decade was a result of gross negligence.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court was justified in condoning a 12-year delay in filing an appeal when the respondent had full knowledge of the suit's pendency but abandoned the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A party with full knowledge of the pendency of a suit who stops appearing cannot later claim ignorance to justify an extraordinary delay in filing an appeal. Mechanical condonation of such a long delay is impermissible when it results from the gross negligence of public servants, which further constitutes a breach of the Public Trust Doctrine regarding the protection of public resources.
Result: Revision allowed; impugned order of condonation of delay set aside and the appeal rejected as barred by limitation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- crime and sentencing
Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Shri Kartik Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Aditya Choubey, G.A. with Shri K. K. Gautam, P.L.
For the Applicant :Shri Kartik Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Aditya Choubey, G.A. with Shri K. K. Gautam, P.L.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no sufficient cause for 12-year delay; State argued confusion and leniency for government land. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Revision allowed; impugned order condoning delay set aside; appeal rejected as barred by limitation. (Para 14 , 19 )
4. What constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act?
The applicant must show a reasonable explanation; mere ignorance or blame on court is insufficient, especially when the party had prior knowledge and ceased to appear. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Is the State entitled to leniency in condoning delay due to impersonal functioning?
No; leniency does not excuse gross negligence or abdication of duty by the State's functionaries. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. What is the appellate court's duty when considering an application for condonation of delay?
The appellate court must critically examine the reasons and not mechanically condone a long delay, especially when the party exhibited negligence. (Para 12 , 13 )
ORDER :
Vivek Jain, J.
The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the trial Court in condoning the delay by allowing application under Section 5 of Limitation Act in filing first appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2004. The appeal was filed on 28.09.2016 against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2004 with the delay of exact 12 years.
2. Counsel for the applicant has argued that no reason was assigned, but in the application for condonation of delay. It was a case where the State was duly served in the suit, it started appearing in the suit and earlier the State was declared ex-parte, but thereafter application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC had been filed and the ex-parte proceedings were set aside. Thereafter, the counsel for the State started appearing but after some time stopped appearing in the suit. Therefore, it was a case where the concerned authorities of the State had full knowledge of pendency of the suit and therefore, the delay of 12 years in filing the regular appeal against the judgement and decree dated 30.06.2004 could not have been condoned by the Appellate Court. It cannot be comprehended that a party, who is having knowledge of pendency of suit and stops to take care of the said suit suddenly, then for 12 years remained ignorant about the fate of the suit, and came to know about decision of the suit after 12 years. It is not a case where there was any dispute that whether the State was served or not, but it was a case where the State was served and was duly appearing in the suit and then stopped appearing in the suit.
3. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the State that the suit was filed in the year 1996 and the suit had been rejected by allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 17.11.1997, which was challenged in appeal by the plaintiff and the said appeal was allowed on 16.02.2000 and then the suit was restored. In this confusion, the counsel for the State could not appear in the trial court after remand. It is argued that it is a valuable government land and there should be some leniency in condoning delay in favour of the State, which functions through impersonal machinery.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and perused the documents on record.
5. It is seen that the suit was initially filed in the year 1996 and then it was dismissed by allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 17.11.1997. The said application was challenged in Appeal No.52A of 1997 by the present petitioner plaintiff and the said appeal was allowed on 16.02.2000 whereby the matter was remanded back to the Civil Court for adjudication on merits.
6. The appeal was duly allowed in presence of counsel for the State Smt. Narayani Upadhyay, whose presence is duly marked in the decree of the Appellate Court, whereby the matter was remanded to this trial Court for adjudication on merits.
7. This Court has gone through the order sheets of the trial Court after remand and from perusal of the order sheets, it is observed by this Court that after remand the parties were to appear before the trial Court on 28.02.2000, but none appeared for the State on the said date. Thereafter on 27.07.2000 a counsel appeared for the State. On 01.08.2000, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was filed by the State, which was marked as IA No. 5. The said application IA No.5 was allowed on 08.05.2001 and the ex-parte proceedings against the State was set aside by the trial Court.
8. Thereafter, the counsel for the State continued appearing before the trial Court, but after February, 2004 the counsel for the State stopped appearing before the trial Court. The counsel for the State did not appear before the trial Court at all after February, 2004 and the trial Court continued with the trial of the case. The defendant State was proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte decree was passed on 30.06.2004.
9. The appeal against the said ex-par
