1 2026:CGHC:22188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2382 of 2026 1 - Mahesh Sharma S/o Ghanshyam Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 50/626 Pragati Nagar Lakhe Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deepak Sharma S/o Ghanshyam Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 50/626 Pragati Nagar Lakhe Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Appellate Tribunal Under Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Maintenance Tribunal) 4 - Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Late Sampatlal Sharma Aged About 76 Years R/o House No. 50/626, Pragati Nagar, Lakhe Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority/Collector whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- "i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition; ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners; iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing the impugned Order dated 16.03.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2; iv. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to remand back the matter for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity.; 3 v. Any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioners are sons of respondent No. 4 and are residing in the disputed residential house along with other family members. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 4 instituted proceedings under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act alleging neglect and ill-treatment and sought maintenance as well as eviction of the petitioners from the disputed premises. In the said proceedings, the petitioners filed detailed reply denying all allegations and specifically contended that the property in question is a joint family property acquired from ancestral family income and stridhan of their mother and that respondent No. 4 is not the exclusive owner thereof. The petitioners also denied allegations of cruelty and neglect. It is further stated that despite several opportunities granted between the years 2023 to March, 2025, respondent No. 4 did not adduce evidence and avoided cross-examination. According to the petitioners, notwithstanding absence of evidence on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Tribunal abruptly closed the opportunity of the petitioners to lead evidence and proceeded to decide the matter without granting proper hearing and without notifying the petitioners regarding final hearing of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal passed the order dated 23.05.2025 directing eviction of 4 the petitioners. The petitioners have further stated that no information or copy of the said order was supplied to them and they came to know about the same only on 16.02.2026 during proceedings initiated before the Tehsildar. Thereafter, the petitioners immediately applied for certified copy and preferred an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.03.2026 dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the sufficient cause shown by the petitioners and without entering into merits of the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the Maintenance Tribunal passed the order dated 23.05.2025 without there being any evidence led by respondent No. 4 and without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence in support of their defence. It is further submitted that the petitioners were never informed regarding final hearing and the proceedings were concluded in a wholly arbitrary manner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners had specifically pleaded before the Appellate Authority that they had no knowledge of the order dated 23.05.2025 and came to know about the same only on 16.02.2026 through Tehsildar proceedings. Immediately thereafter, the appeal 5 was preferred along with a detailed application for condonation of delay explaining the circumstances leading to delay in filing the appeal. It is argued that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by dismissing the appeal merely on technical ground of limitation without appreciating the plausible reasons assigned by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the delay was only of about three months and substantial rights of the parties ought not to have been defeated on hyper-technical grounds. It is further contended that the dispute involved adjudication of civil and property rights, which could not have been summarily decided without proper evidence and adjudication. The impugned orders, therefore, are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is contended that the petitioners had alternative statutory remedies available and the proceedings before the Tribunal were conducted in accordance with law. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioners failed to challenge the order within time and therefore no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the appeal 6 preferred by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act assigning reasons for delay in preferring the appeal. 6. From perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it appears that plausible reasons have been assigned by the present petitioners explaining that they had no knowledge regarding passing of the order dated 23.05.2025 and came to know about the same only on 16.02.2026 through subsequent proceedings before the Tehsildar. However, while deciding the said application, the concerned Collector/Appellate Authority has not considered the aforesaid aspect and has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without assigning any detailed reasons with regard to sufficiency or otherwise of the explanation furnished by the petitioners. 7. From further perusal of the record, it appears that the appeal was barred only by approximately three months (90 days). In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate Authority ought to have adopted a liberal approach while considering the application for condonation of delay, particularly when valuable rights of the parties were involved and the matter required adjudication on merits. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned 7 order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority/Collector is hereby set aside. The delay caused in filing the appeal by the petitioners stands condoned. The concerned Collector/Appellate Authority is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the same afresh on merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE