1 2025:CGHC:33752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 344 of 2014 1. Thanwar And Ors. S/o Latiram Aged About 48 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., Chhattisgarh 2. Madhu D/o Latiram Aged About 46 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Mannu S/o Latiram Aged About 44 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4. Dhannu S/o Latiram Aged About 42 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5. Manju D/o Latiram Aged About 28 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6. Ghasnin Bai D/o Latiram Aged About 39 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 7. Jay Kunwar W/o Latiram Aged About 68 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 8. Baisakhiya Bai D/o Kriparam Aged About 83 Years R/o Lohandiya, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.16 11:41:19 +0530 2 1. Tularam And Ors. S/o Derha Aged About 57 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., Chhattisgarh 2. Budhwara Bai W/o Gokul Aged About 57 Years R/o Jarhagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Dukhin Bai W/o Nakched Aged About 53 Years R/o Dharampura C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4. Binda Bai W/o Malikram Aged About 51 Years R/o Bhathlikala C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5. Mati Bai W/o Nihora Aged About 48 Years R/o Kunwagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6. Lila Bai W/o Ratnoo Aged About 43 Years R/o Kunwagaon, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 7. Bundki Bai W/o Netram Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhathlikala C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 8. The State Of Chhattisgarh W/o Thru- The Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Now Distt. Mungeli C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. The instant Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli, in Civil Appeal No. 9-A /2011, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff on the count of delay and latches of 13 days. 3 2. The parties have been described as per their description given in the civil suit No. 9-A/2011 before the trial Court. 3. The appeal was admitted on 11.11.2014 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the first appellate court was justified in rejecting the First Appeal only on the ground that the appellant has not been able to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 13 days in filing of the first appeal?”. 4. Facts reflected from the record are that the plaintiff filed the suit on 11.01.2008 for declaration and permanent injunction claiming partition over the suit property described in Scheduled A annexed with the plaint. It is also the case of the appellants that their father Latiram and defendants father Derharam were real brothers. Grandfather Kripara owned 7 acres agricultural land and has done partition between his sons in year about 1959-60 and since then they are in possession of their respective shares. It is contended that at village Jarhagaon, P.H. No. -24, R. N. M. Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Khasra No. 490, area 1.48 land is situated which has been described in Scheduled-A of the plaint with blue ink and 18 dismal land which fall within the share of the plaintiff described in red ink is a disputed property only wherein the defendants are claiming their title. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendants moved an application before Tahsildar Jharhagaon, who has passed the order of partition on 14.12.2005 which deserves to be declared as null and void and on the basis of this illegal order the defendants No. 1 to 7 have started interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs which has necessitated the plaintiffs’ to file the suit. 4 5. The defendants have filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The trial Court after appreciation of material, evidence has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff has filed the first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Mungeli on 31.01.2011 which was delayed by 13 days. The appeal was filed on 01.01.2011 along with application under Section of 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay stating that for obtaining judgment and decree he has moved the application on 21.12. 2010 and obtained copy of the judgment and decree on 23.10.2010 thereafter he has contacted his counsel for obtaining certified copy of the order but he could not meet him and appeal could not be prepared which has caused delay in filing the appeal which is bona-fide and there is sufficient reason for condoning the delay. The said application was also supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff. 6. The respondents submitted their reply to the said application. 7. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff on 26.06.2014 and has recorded its finding that the plaintiff has not given proper explanation for condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court under Section 100 CPC. This appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law as stated above. 8. Record of the case would show that the appeal was preferred by the appellant on 31.01.2011 with delay of 13 days wherein he has also explained the delay with detailed reasons and the said application was 5 supported by the affidavit, as such there is no rebuttal, still the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal have been dismissed on the count of limitation. This is nothing but an abuse process of law and against the well settled position of law that the litigant should not be deprived from getting justice merely on the technicalities of law. Learned Additional District Judge has taken hyper technical view in not condoning the delay of 13 days and without visualizing the plight of litigant has not only dismissed the application but appeal also, therefore, substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellant. It is also well settled legal position of law that each day delay is not required to be explained only sufficient and bon-afide delay has to be seen, accordingly the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside and it is set aside. The delay of 13 days in preferring appeal before the 1st Appellate Court is condoned as Appellant is able to show sufficient and bona-fide reason in not filing appeal within time. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 9. The appeal is remitted back to the first Appellate court to decide the appeal on its own merit without insisting condonation of delay as this Court has already condoned the delay. The appellant shall appear before the trial Court on 28th October, 2025. 10. Before parting with the case, it is expedient for this Court to consider this aspect of the matter that the appeal was filed on 31.01.2011 and learned First Appellate Court took more than 3 years in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation which shows as to how the civil litigation is being dealt by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. 6 11. The record be sent back to the First Appellant Court. It is made clear that this Court has not examined merit of the case. It is pertinent to mention here that in the second Appeal before this Court, no one has represented on behalf of the appellants, therefore, Registry is directed to send the copy of the order to the appellants on their address mentioned in the memo of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 12. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santsoh