IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 18 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2636 of 2015 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN Versus SHRI BHAGWANDAS (DEAD) THR. LRS. ANGAD (DEAD) THR. LRS.

MUNNI BAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aarish Hyder - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

ORDER The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the original applicant before the learned Trial Court. By filing the present Misc. Appeal under the provisions of Section 43 Rule 1(ja) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a challenge has been made to the order dated 24/09/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kotma, in the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Kotma, District Anuppur, in Civil Suit No. 02/2014, whereby the application under Order 21 Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that one Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal (original plaintiff) had preferred Civil Suit No. 14-A/1983 against Bhagwandas Sonkar seeking a decree of eviction and mesne profits in respect of the tenancy premises owned by him. The suit was contested by the parties and was ultimately decreed by judgment and decree dated 21/01/1987, whereby the decree of eviction was drawn. Execution proceedings were initiated by the decree-holder, Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the decree- holder died in the year 1995. Since the legal heirs of Rameshwar Prasad were not aware of the pending litigation, the execution proceedings remained unattended after his death and were eventually dismissed in default on 14/10/1996. Consequently, the decree dated 21/01/1987 remained unexecuted.

3. During this period, the original defendant, Bhagawandas Sonkar, had also departed for his heavenly abode. The counsel informed the applicant that a judgment and decree for eviction of the suit property had already been passed in the year 1987, and the execution thereof was dismissed due to non- appearance. On legal advice, another execution application was filed on 24/03/2002 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 21/01/1987. However, this second execution application was dismissed vide order dated

11/07/2006 on the ground of limitation.

4. The appellant had preferred an application under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the execution case filed on 20/04/1990, which was dismissed in default on 14/10/1996. The application was strongly opposed by the respondent, and vide order dated 24/09/2015, the restoration application was dismissed. This order has been challenged by filing the present Misc. Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has criticized the impugned order by submitting that it is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. It is argued that the application was alien to the judgment and decree dated 21/01/1987 as well as to the order dated 14/10/1996, and that as soon as the factum of these orders came to his knowledge, the application for restoration was filed. The delay, it is argued, is bona fide and deserves to be condoned. It is also submitted that the present appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. An attempt has also been made to explain the delay between 26/07/2006 and 04/10/2006 on the ground of the illness of the applicant’s wife. Lastly, a prayer has been made for restoration of Execution Case No. 14-A of 1983-90.

6. E-Converso, the prayer for restoration has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is argued that the present appellant was fully aware of the pendency of the court proceedings, particularly the execution case, and that he had informed the court about the death of Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal. The other averments in the application were denied.

7. Heard the submissions and perused the record.

8. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is whether the delay in filing the re