Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37446
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
Anusuiya – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 30329/2024
Ravi Shankar Saini,Advocate General
The period of limitation does not commence until the applicant discovers the fraud or mistake, necessitating proof of reasonable diligence in discovery.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Limitation Act - Section 5 and Section 17 - Petition challenging orders of Revenue Courts regarding delay in appeal - Petitioner claimed ignorance of earlier order due to minority - Application for condonation of delay rejected as time-barred - Court affirmed dismissal, emphasizing that without condonation, appeal cannot be considered on merits. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 11)
(B) Limitation - Knowledge of order - The period of limitation does not begin until the applicant discovers the fraud or mistake, or could have discovered it with reasonable diligence. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having been a minor at the time of the original order in 1977, claimed ignorance of it until recently, leading to a delay of 47 years in filing an appeal. The SDO dismissed the appeal as barred by time.
Findings of Court:
The court found no jurisdictional error in the Revenue Courts' decisions and affirmed the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for the delay and if the SDO was obligated to decide the appeal on merits despite the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the order and that the SDO was correct in dismissing the appeal due to the lack of condonation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel argued for condonation (Para 4) |
| 2. court considered submissions (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court ruled on reasonable diligence (Para 7) |
| 4. court affirmed dismissal of petition (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 13.08.2024 passed by SDO, Chhindwara in Revenue Case No.60/Appeal/2024-2025 and order dated 09.09.2024 passed by Collector, Chhindwara in Revision No.15/Revision/2024-25.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had preferred an appeal before SDO, Chhindwara against order dated 27.11.1977 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Mohkhed. It is submitted that at the time of passing of impugned order, petitioner was minor and after attaining her age when she acquired the knowledge of said order, she preferred an appeal alongwith an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act . The SDO, Chhindwara by order dated 13.08.2024 rejected the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by time.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a Revision, which too has been dismissed by Collector, Chhindwara by order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Revision No.15/Revision/2024-25.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Courts, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since petitioner was not aware of passing of order dated 27.11.1977, which was passed during her minority, therefore, petitioner had made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 47 years. It is further submitted that even after the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was rejected, still SDO, Chhindwara was under obligation to decide the appeal on merits.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
6. Section 17 of Limitation Act reads as under :
“17. Effect of fraud or mistake.—
(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,—
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him,
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which—
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment- creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Pro
