IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WP No. 20363 of 2013 (SHRI GURUDWARA SINGH SABHA, GALLA MANDI REWA AND OTHERS Vs SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR TAMRKAR AND OTHERS ) Dated :20-02-2026 Shri Jaspreet Gulati - Advocate for the petitioners Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate with Ms Anannya Shree Adhikari, counsel for the respondent.

Shri Manu V John, P.L. for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.3637/2026, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement resulting due to death of petitioner No.1 Kamaljeet Singh Dang.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the instant petition before this Hon’ble Court, petitioner No. 1, Shri Kamaljeet Singh Dang, expired on 13.06.2023. Upon his demise, the Trust elected a new President to look after and manage the affairs and estate of the Trust. In view of the said development, the appellants have preferred an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking substitution of the legal representatives on record and application under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908e present petition was last listed on 16.12.2013. Subsequently, in the month of August, 2021, the learned counsel who was earlier representing the petitioners was elevated to the Bench. Since the petition had already been admitted for hearing and the petitioners were unaware of the elevation of their previous counsel, they remained under the bona fide belief that the learned counsel would inform them as and when the matter would be listed before this Hon’ble Court. t, after the death of the erstwhile President Shri Kamaljeet Singh Dang, the members of the Trust elected a new President to look after its affairs. The newly appointed President, however, was not aware of the pendency of the present litigation. When the matter was listed on 15.01.2026, the counsel presently handling the matter made sincere efforts to contact the petitioner on the phone number available on record; however, the said number was found to be unreachable. Thereafter, the counsel made diligent and earnest efforts to trace and contact the newly elected President and eventually succeeded in establishing communication with him. Upon being apprised of the pendency of the case, the applicant promptly visited the counsel along with the necessary particulars. Thereafter, without any delay, the requisite documents were collected and the present application has been filed promptly. The delay in filing the application is bona fide, not willful or deliberate and has occurred due to the reasons aforesaid. It would therefore be just, proper and convenient to condone the delay in filing application for setting aside the abatement resulting due to death of Petitioner No.1 Kamaljeet Singh Dang and such an order would be expedient in the interest of justice.

3. The counsel for the opponent has opposed the same by saying that there is huge delay of more than ten years in filing such application which is not required to be considered as no sufficient cause is made out.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 5 of Limitation reads as under :-

"Section 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period."

5. Considering the rival submissions and considering the section of Limitation Act which is meant for consideration of application for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is made out and considering the fact that the present application is filed for condonation of delay after bringing legal representatives which is filed under the