1 2025:CGHC:17570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 275 of 2025 1 - Guha Ram (Died) Through Lrs (Note - Lrs Of Applicant No. 1 Is Already On Record As Applicant No. 1 And 2) 2 - Patrakhan S/o Guharam Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mudgadeeh, Tahsil - Mohala, Distt - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Now Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh) 3 - Man Rakhan S/o Guharam Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Mudgadeeh, Tahsil - Mohala, Distt - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Now Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh) ... Applicants/Appellants versus 1 - Sunher (Died) Through Lrs Nil 1.1 - Meghnath S/o Late Shri Sunher Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Mungadeeh, Tahsil - Mohala, Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Goutar Bai W/o Baliram Sinha Aged About 58 Years R/o Village And Post - Koudikasa, Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Sunder Bai W/o Gouri Ram Sinha Aged About 54 Years Village And Post - Akatkanhar, Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Samari Bai W/o Sunher Sinha Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Daihan, Post - Bandha Bazar, Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh 2 - Manhar (Died) Through Lrs Nil 2.1 - Kewal S/o Late Hanuman Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Mungadeeh, Tahsil - Mohala, Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh 2 2.2 - Toran Lal S/o Late Hanuman Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Mungadeeh, Tahsil - Mohala, Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh 2.3 - Rajuram S/o Late Shri Manher Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Mungadeeh, Tahsil - Mohala, Distt - Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now State Of Chhattisgarh) Through District Collector, Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Applicants/Appellants : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 16.04.2025 1. Heard on I.A No.01/2025, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants would submit that orginal appellant/defendant namely; Guha Ram and others had filed Second Appeal No.793/1999 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the year 1999. At that time of filing the original second appeal, appellant -Guha Ram handed over the entire file to his original counsel of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, but unfortunately, during the pendency of second appeal, Guha Ram died. Appellants were not aware of pendency of second appeal before the High Court. They came to know about the judgment when notice of execution case was served to them, thereafter, they enquired about the case, obtained certified copy of second appeal, and thereafter they filed instant M.C.C. on 28.02.2025. He would further submit that though it is a huge delay in filing MCC for restoration of second appeal, but it is bona fide, 3 therefore, delay of 11 years & 5 months in filing MCC for restoration of SA No.793/1999 may be allowed and second appeal may be restored in its original number. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that delay is more than 11 years & 5 months and such inordinate delay ought not condoned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of record shows that SA No.793/1999 was filed by Guha Ram and his two sons against non-applicants/respondents, which was dismissed on 30.09.2013 for want of prosecution. 6. Instant MCC has been filed by the applicants/appellants by filing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but it is barred by limitation with inordinate delay of 11 years & 5 months. Cause of delay shown by appellants is not found to be proper because at the time of filing appeal, Guha Ram was aged about 60 years and comparatively other appellants i.e. his two sons were adult persons aged about 30/35 years at the time of filing of appeal, therefore it cannot be accepted that they were not aware about the pendency of appeal. Further, massive ignorance about the pendency of appeal, that too, for more than 11 years cannot be excused because after filing any case or appeal in the Courts, parties ought to have contacted their advocate to know about the progress and fate of the case, but in instant case, it seems that applicants/appellants went in slumber after filing appeal and they woke up after about 11 years. Such negligent act of applicants/appellants cannot be overlooked. 7. It is also apt to be noted here that after lapse of more than 11 years, interest of various persons also created either by sale, purchase or any 4 other mode of transfer and even some times, encumbrance is also vested over the property. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others reported in 2013 (12) SCC 649, has held as under:- 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. 9. Though it is settled proposition of law that, while deciding application to condone the delay in filing the suit, appeal and application etc., liberal view ought to have been taken by the Courts, but in instant case, restoration application has been filed after lapse of more than 11 years and no sufficient cause has been shown to condone this inordinate delay in filing instant MCC/appeal. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to condone such inordinate delay, hence I.A. No.01/2025; application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing restoration application is dismissed. Consequently, this M.C.C. is also dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.04.17 17:46:09 +0530