-1- 2025:CGHC:32382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 779 of 2023 1 - Sonia Bai Sahu W/o Ramesh Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Abadipara Ward No. 1, Gram Panchayat Induri, Police Station Piparia Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Roshan Kumar Sahu S/o Ramesh Sahu, Aged About 23 Years Occupation House Labour, R/o Abadipara Ward No. 1, Gram Panchayat Induri, Police Station Piparia Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gyan Prakash Baghel S/o Basant Baghel, Aged About 23 Years Occupation- Plating, R/o Ward No. 17, Minimata Chowk, Khuntu Road, Near Jangde Hospital Road, Kawardha, P.S. Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Suresh Kumar Toram Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Ex- Patwari (Now Suspended), R/o Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 3, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Office Of Collectorate Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. T. R. Patel, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate For respondent No.3/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.07.2025 1) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirdham to the Court of Additional District Judge, Kabirdham in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 04/2021, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC was dismissed and the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court was affirmed. 2) The petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for recovery of 7,50,000/- before ₹ the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Kawardha, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 02.03.2021, rejected the said application on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a miscellaneous civil appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC, which was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 07.09.2022. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the suit was filed for recovery of 7,50,000/- and sufficient cause for delay was shown. ₹ He further contends that the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal and thus prays for setting aside of the impugned orders. -3- 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and supports the orders passed by the Courts below. 5) It is a well-settled principle of law that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be filed along with the plaint in cases where the suit itself is barred by limitation. The learned trial Court rightly rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the ground that the suit was time- barred by limitation and such an application was not maintainable. Further, the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC was also not maintainable against the rejection of an application for condonation of delay, and the learned Appellate Court rightly dismissed the same. 6) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Courts below have committed no error in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissing the appeal. The petition lacks merit and does not call for any interference. 7) Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim