IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5838 of 2025 RAJNISH SON OF RATANLAL SONI TRHOUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS. DURGA Versus SCINDHIYA DEVSTHAN TRUST (REGD) HEAD OFFICE AT JAIVILAS PALAC GWALIOR (M.P.) MANAGER ARPIT JOSHI Appearance:

Shri Sunil Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This Court has carefully considered the material available on record, the impugned orders of the Courts below, and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

2. It is observed that on 02.03.2020, the respondent herein had filed a civil suit RCS A No. 69/2021 (old No. RCS A 119/2020) before the Court of II Civil Judge Class-II, Ujjain, seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a shop situated in the campus of Gopal Mandir, Ujjain against the deceased Shri Ratanlal Soni. The Trial Court, after proceeding ex parte, passed a judgment and decree on 21.06.2022 against Shri Ratanlal Soni in Civil Suit No. 69-A/2021.

3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay. Vide order dated 05.04.2025, the learned Trial Court dismissed both the applications, observing that bare perusal of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribed a limitation period of thirty days from the date of the decree or from the date when summons were not duly served, for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. Failure to file such application within the prescribed period, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, rendered the application liable to dismissal. As per the Explanation to the provision, substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was not deemed to be due service. In the present case, the applicant himself admitted having been served notice through registered post hence, the service was held proper. The applicant’s plea of ignorance of the proceedings was found neither reliable nor bona fide in the absence of corroborative material. Once service by registered post was effected, it was presumed that the defendant was aware of the proceedings unless proved otherwise. Mere assertion of ignorance was insufficient, and the defendant was required to show sufficient cause for the delay in seeking to set aside the decree.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay, before the Court of IV Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ujjain, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 74/2025, arising out of the case titled Rajneesh v. Scindia Devasthan Trust. The Appellate Court, vide its order, upheld the finding of the Trial Court and observed that although the Court should generally adopt a lenient approach while considering applications for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act,1963 and decide matters on merits, in the present case, the petitioner had overwritten the date of delivery in the endorsement of the impugned order with an intent to limit the period of appeal. The medical prescription produced also did not satisfactorily explain the appellant’s illness. It was further observed that the appellant did not approach the Court with clean hands and, therefore, was not entitled to the Court’s leniency.

5. The petitioner has now preferred the present miscellaneous petition being aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC and the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below. It is contended that on 05.01.2021, when the counsel for the plaintiff informed the Trial Court about the death of defendant Shri Ratanlal Soni, the Court ought to have conducted an enquiry into the factum of death before proceeding further. However, no such enquiry was made, and the Trial Court proceeded ex parte and delive