IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 18 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6401 of 2025 YASHODA Versus INDRADEV AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Deepak Sahu - P.L. for the respondents / State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11-10-

2023 passed by the appellate court, thereby condoning the delay of 72 days occurred in filing regular appeal under Section 96 C.P.C before the lower appellate court.

2. The present respondents No. 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and their suit was dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 30-09-2023 against which they filed appeal on 31.01.2024 which after deduction of copying days was filed with a delay of 72 days. The present petitioner who was the original defendant No. 1 is in this petition, challenges the order of condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the regular appeal.

3. It is contended by the petitioner herein that the petitioner is mother of respondents No. 1 and 2 and the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the appeal only to cause trouble to the present petitioner in her old age and in relation to family property the present petitioner is being harassed and there was no cause nor any sufficient reason was shown for condonation of delay in filing the regular appeal under section 96 CPC.

4. Upon considering the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that so far as the contention that the appeal is being filed only to harass and trouble the present petitioner is concerned, the said assertions seem to have been raised before this Court only to gather sympathy from this Court. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have been given a right by virtue of section 96 C.P.C to file appeal against judgement and decree of the trial Court and exercising that right does not amount to harassment of the defendants. Even otherwise before the trial Court the present petitioner as well as her other son namely Baldev was the co-defendants but in the present petition only the present petitioner has come up before this Court.

5. The delay caused in filing the regular appeal under Section 96 was

72 days and the lower appellate Court while condoning the delay has considered the fact that the respondents No.1 and 2 have stated getting information of judgement and decree dated 30-09-2023 on 15-01-2024 and then contacted a counsel and applied for certified copy and filed the appeal on 31-01-2024. The trial Court while condoning the delay has accepted the contention of the respondents No.1 and 2 that in filing of the appeal delay was occurred on the ground of lack of communication with the counsel due to daughter of respondent No. 1 being unwell and he travelling to various places in connection with treatment of his daughter. The trial court has accepted the aforesaid explanation tendered by the respondent No.1 and has held it to be a sufficient cause.

6. Looking to the position that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have exercised their statutory right in filing the appeal before the appellate Court under section 96 C.P.C. and the appellate Court has allowed the application finding the delay to be caused by illness of daughter of respondent No. 1; and further looking to the short period of delay of 72 days and the facts of the case as noted in the order of the appellate Court, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the order dated 11-10-2025 whereby delay of 72 days in filing the statutory appeal has been condoned.

7. Consequently finding no ground to interfere in the present matter, the petition stands dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE nks