1 2025:CGHC:31503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 260 of 2024 1 - Modi Sanjay Kumar Jain S/o Modi Late Shantilal Jain, Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur (CG) ... Applicant versus 1 - Ramji Girdhar S/o Mukhram Das Girdhan Aged About 50 Years Businessman Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 2 - Sardar Sarwan Singh S/o Ramel Singh, Aged About 56 Years Mechanic, Old Narendra Talkies Road, Jagdalpur (Bastar) (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order On Board 09/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant MCC. 2. This MCC has been preferred by applicant for restoration of First Appeal No.321/1999, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2013 for want of prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first appeal No.321/1999 (Modi Sanjay Kumar Jain versus Ramji Girdhar and Another) was filed by applicant/appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur (M.P.). After bifurcation of the State and creation of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the case was transferred from the RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.07.10 10:29:06 +0530 2 High Court of M.P. to the High Court of C.G. But, due to inadvertent error on the part of office of the then engaged counsel for the applicant, vakalatnama and necessary pleadings of the applicant could not be filed, hence, the engaged counsel for the applicant could not appear in any of the hearings of the instant matter and the matter got dismissed for want of prosecution. She further submits that applicant was not aware that his case has been dismissed for want of prosecution and even after repeated enquiry, he could not able to know about the fate of his case. Thereafter, he reached at the High Court and made an enquiry about the instant matter in the E-Seva Kendra, where he came to know that the matter has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.04.2013 and thereafter, he contacted his present counsel for filing of this MCC. Because of aforesaid facts, some delay causes in filing instant MCC. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Courts have time and again held that a litigant should not be made to suffer because of the fault of the counsel, hence, she prayed that delay of 3201 days in filing instant MCC is bona fide, therefore, it may be condoned. 4. Perusal of record of instant MCC as well as first appeal shows that First Appeal No.321/1999 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.04.2013. It has not been mentioned by the applicant/appellant in condonation application that when he enquired about the fate of his case and when first time, he came to know about the dismissal of his appeal for want of prosecution. No date has been mentioned in this regard. The instant MCC has been filed along with application for condonation of delay on 28.02.2024, thus, delay in filing MCC is 3201 days. No sufficient cause has been mentioned by the applicant to 3 condone the delay in filing MCC. Even as has been stated above, it has also not been specifically mentioned that when he first time came to know about the dismissal of his appeal. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685 in paragraphs 25 and 26 has observed as under: “25. We may state that even if the term ‘sufficient cause’ has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of ‘reasonableness’ as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.” 6. In another case, the Supreme Court in the case of Esha 4 Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held in paragraphs 21.9(ix) and 21.10(x) as under:- “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 or 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.” 7. Having considered the totality of the case as well as the judgment dated 23.11.1998 passed by First Upper District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, which was challenged in first appeal No.321/1999, in the light of above referred cases, I do not find any good ground to condone the huge delay of 3201 days, hence, I.A. No.01/2024; application for condonation in filing MCC is rejected. Consequently, the instant MCC is also dismissed. 8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar