1 2025:CGHC:23396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 238 of 2024 1 - Smt. Khomin Verma W/o Late Jain Singh Verma Aged About 50 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Kopedih, Post Tumdibod, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Umesh Verma S/o Late Jain Singh Verma Aged About 22 Years Cast Lodhi, Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Kopedih, Post Tumdibod, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Gulshan Verma S/o Late Jain Singh Verma Aged About 26 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Kopedih, Post Tumdibod, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - M. Lata Verma D/o Late Jain Singh Verma Aged About 33 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Kopedih, Post Tumdibod, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Tameshvari Verma D/o Late Jain Singh Verma Aged About 33 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Kopedih, Post Tumdibod, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - R.B. Qureshi S/o Late P.B. Quereshi Aged About 55 Years Caste Muslim, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Khandelwal Colony District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) 2 For Appellants : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. Heard on I.A. 1/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. The present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 1639 days. 3. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment & decree dated 25.02.2020 passed by Upper District Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 08-A/2016 [Jain Singh Lodhi (dead) through Lrs. Smt. Khomin Verma & others vs. R.B. Qureshi & another] whereby civil suit filed by original plaintiff – Jain Singh Lodhi for declaration of nullity /invalidity of sale deed dated 5.6.2015 in favour of respondent No. 1/defendant has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that original plaintiff – Jain singh Lodhi, who was husband of present appellant No. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 to 5, has expired during pendency of the civil suit, therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded in the cause title of civil suit. It is contended that after hearing pleading of both the parties, the aforesaid civil suit was dismissed by the Upper District Judge, Rajnandgaon, but the same was not informed to them by their counsel, therefore, appellants/plaintiffs could not prefer first appeal within the stipulated period. He further submits that appellants are poor villagers and not knowing about the law & procedure. He submits that when respondent 3 No. 1/defendant filed mutation application after getting decree, and notice of the same was served to them, then only they came to know about passing of the said judgment & decree. It is submitted that delay of 1639 days (4 year, 9 month & 1 day) occurred in filing the appeal is bonafide, hence, the same may be condoned. 5. Per contra, counsel for the State, while opposing the aforesaid application would submit that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and no sufficient / reasonable cause has been assigned by the appellants/plaintiffs for causing the said delay in filing the appeal, hence, the application may be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Impugned judgment was passed by learned Upper District Judge, Rajnandgaon on 25.02.2020 and the present appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay has been preferred by the appellant on 26.11.2024, thus, it is apparent that there is inordinate delay of 1639 days in filing the first appeal. 8. Cause of delay in filing the appeal, as projected by the appellants/plaintiffs, is that their counsel did not inform them about passing of the judgment & decree, but this reason cannot be accepted as bonafide reason, because if the counsel did not inform them about passing of the impugned judgment & decree, then it was duty of the appellants/plaintiffs to ask about fate of their case from their counsel, but it seems that they themselves did not contact to their counsel for more than 4 years. Therefore, such huge delay cannot be considered as bonafide. Further, after four years of passing of judgment & decree, various other changes in respect of suit 4 property i.e. alienation of the property, etc. occurred, hence, such an inordinate delay cannot be condoned lightly. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Versus The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 513 has held in paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21, as under:- “17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing ‘sufficient cause’ in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The decree- holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights. 18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramla, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a ‘sufficient cause’ for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party. 19. In Maqbul Ahmad vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1935 PC 85, it had been held that the court cannot 5 grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351 wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. 21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363 where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to 6 jettison the substantial law of limitation.” 10. Considering every aspects of the matter, in the instant case, the appellants could not explain inordinate delay of 1639 days in filing the appeal, hence, said huge delay cannot be condoned in light of aforecited judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, particularly considering the trivial ground putforth by the appellants. In aforesaid fact situation, allowing the condonation application would defeat the very purpose of the law of limitation. The court would not grant exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. Therefore, delay occurred in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. As such, I am not inclined to condone the delay of 1639 days’ in filing the instant appeal. Hence, I.A. No.1/2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby rejected. 11. Consequently, first appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.18 11:02:08 +0530