Legal heirs should not be unjustly deprived of their rightful claims due to procedural delays if circumstances warrant a liberal approach in condoning such delays.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 18 OF AUGUST, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 779 of 2025 SMT. OMVATI PULAIYA Versus COMMANDANT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rishikesh Bohare, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

ORDER This civil revision, under Section 115 of CPC , has been filed against the order dated 6-2-2017, passed by V Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 03/2016, by which the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. It appears that initially against the impugned order dated 6-2-2017, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 1878/2017, and by order dated 4-3-2025, the petitioner was directed to convert the writ petition into a civil revision, and accordingly, the writ petition was converted into a civil revision and it is listed for consideration.

3. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate on the ground that her husband Late Deendayal Pulaiya was working as a Constable in 18th Battalion SAF and died in harness on 19-11-2013. It was claimed that retiral dues to the extent of Rs. 8,60,000/- inclusive of pension, gratuity, etc. are Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND with respondent No.1, and the applicant is issueless and being legally married wife of Late Deendayal Pulaiya, she is entitled to receive the deposited amount. It appears that Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of Deendayal Pulaiya, was impleaded as respondent No. 3, but she did not file her written statement and she was proceeded ex parte.

4. By order dated 30/7/2015, the trial Court after considering the case, partially allowed the application filed by the petitioner and held that petitioner is entitled to one-half share in retiral dues of Late Deendayal Pulaiya, whereas his mother is also entitled for one-half share in his retiral dues. It was also held that since the mother of Late Deendayal Pulaiya has not appeared, therefore no direction is being given for payment of half of the retiral dues of Late Deendayal Pulaiya to his mother.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-7-2015 passed by VII Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Succession Case No. 15/2014, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal with a delay of 162 days, and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The said application has been rejected by the appellate Court by order dated 6-2-2017, and accordingly, the appeal has also been dismissed as barred by time.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that it is a well-established principle of law that Courts should adopt a liberal approach while considering the application for condonation of delay. In the present case, it is undisputed that applicant is legally wedded wife of Late Dean Dayal Palaiya. Respondent No. 3 never appeared before the trial Court and the trial Court has also not issued any Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND direction to pay half of the retiral dues of Late Deendayal Pulaiya to respondent No. 3. Therefore, it is clear that half of the retiral dues would remain with respondent No. 1, which is not the intention of law. It is further submitted that appellant would get anything by not filing an appeal within the period of limitation, and thus, it is submitted that the Court below should have condoned the delay.

7. None appears for the respondents.

8. Respondent No. 3 was served with notice on 30-4-2017 and in spite of that she has not entered appearance before this Court. Even before the trial court she did not appear. It is true that petitioner has not given sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the appeal, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the pet