IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

REVIEW PETITION No. 1735 of 2025 KHUMAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

Versus

SMT HEMLATA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Yash Nitin Nasery - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.26997/2025, an application under Section 5 of Limitation

Act for condonation of delay in filing this Review Petition.

2. This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking extension

of time/ modification of order dated 27/02/2013 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal

No.369/2013.

3. From the perusal of application, it is clear that no explanation is tendered

for condonation of delay. It is also mentioned that the order was communicated to local counsel and also informed to pay requisite court fees on enhanced amount. But, when the order was communicated and when the instructions were received,

the application for condonation of delay is silent on the said aspect.

4. The order under review was passed on 27/02/2013. Petitioners were well

aware of the same but despite of the same, they waited for almost more than 13 years to file this Review Petition and application for condonation of delay does not gather confidence of this Court and there is no substantial explanation for delay in approaching this Court for reviewing of the order seeking extension of

time.

5. The law with respect to sleeping litigant has been considered by the Court in catena of cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, has held as under :-

"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-

situation.

21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

21.5. (v) Lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.

21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by