1 CGHC010165172024 2026:CGHC:30965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 56 of 2024 1 - Mrs. Sunita Yadav W/o Lt. Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav Aged About 64 Years Motipara Durg Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anupam Yadav S/o Lt. Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav Aged About 34 Years Motipara Durg Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Abhishek Yadav S/o Lt. Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav Aged About 32 Years Motipara Durg Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pooja Yadav D/o Lt. Shri Ajay Kumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years Motipara Durg Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Mrs. Panchbati Bai Yadav W/o Lt. Shri Kariya Yadav Aged About 74 Years R/o Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir Kayastha Para, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mrs. Kavita Nahar W/o Shri Jitendra Nahar, Aged About 50 Years R/o R/o Malviya Nagar Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhatisgarh Through The Collector, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellants For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3/State For Respondent No.1 : : : : Ms. Madhulika Jha, Advocate Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate through Video Conferencing Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer None, though served. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. The appellants have preferred the present miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), challenging the impugned RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.07.23 15:34:44 +0530 2 order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg (CG) in MJC Civil/244/2022. By the said order, the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of Civil Suit No. 1236192/2011, Smt. Sunita Yadav vs. Panchbati Yadav and Another (wrongly mentioned as Civil Suit No. 1213192/2011 in the restoration application). 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed aforesaid civil suit through their General Power of Attorney holder, Mr. P. Shastri. The said civil suit was listed for hearing on 08.07.2016. However, despite repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the civil suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, the appellants/plaintiffs filed application under Order IX Rule read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking restoration of the civil suit, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 3. After hearing the parties, learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg (CG), rejected both applications filed by appellants/plaintiffs vide order dated 04.11.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the civil suit had been filed through the plaintiffs’ General Power of Attorney holder, Mr. P. Shastri, who died on 22.02.2018. She 3 further submits she herself, Smt. Madhulika Jha, Advocate, had initially represented the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the General Power of Attorney holder obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from her for engaging another advocate. Consequently, she restrained from representing the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submitted that after the death of General Power of Attorney holder on 22.02.2018, the appellants/plaintiffs remained unaware of the status of the case. On 13.02.2022, when the plaintiffs met with the present counsel, Smt. Madhulika Jha, and sought information about the fate of their case, she informed them that the General Power of Attorney holder had already obtained an NOC from her and that she was no longer representing them. Thereafter, at the request of the plaintiffs, she obtained information regarding the case and filed application on 15.02.2022 (wrongly mentioned as 15.02.2021) seeking certified copy, which was received on 11.04.2022. Only then the plaintiffs came to know that the civil suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 08.07.2016. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed the restoration application on 27.07.2022. 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the delay of about 5 years in filing the restoration application was bona fide. It is contended that, the learned trial Court, instead of adopting a liberal approach in condoning the delay, mechanically dismissed the restoration application, which is bad in law. Hence, she prays that the appeal may be allowed, the impugned order be set aside, 4 and the civil suit be restored by allowing application filed by the plaintiffs under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC after condoning the delay. 5. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent No.3 submits that the State is a formal party in the present case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As per the records as well as the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, it is apparent that that the civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs’ General Power of Attorney holder, Mr. P. Shastri, who is said to be died on 22.02.2018. Upon the death of the General Power of Attorney holder, the plaintiffs ought to have ascertained the status of their case by engaging another counsel or making appropriate inquiries. However, they remained inactive. Even if the General Power of Attorney holder had obtained an NOC from Smt. Madhulika Jha, and she had informed the plaintiffs that she was no longer representing them, the plaintiffs ought to have collected information about the status of their case from her or taken appropriate steps much before 13.02.2022, as has been mentioned in their application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC. Instead, the appellants/plaintiffs failed to take any interest pursuing the matter and remained oblivious about the fate of their own case for nearly 5 years after its dismissal. 5 8. In the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., (2021) 18 SCC 384 : (AIR 2022 SC 332), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 as under :- 7.2 In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556, while refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously. 7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 448, it is observed as under: “….. the laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on 6 public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.” 7.4 In the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, it is observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature. 7.5 In Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”. 7 9. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, if the facts of the instant case is considered, then it is found that delay of 5 years occurred in filing the restoration application is inordinate and no sufficient reason has been shown by the plaintiffs, which would demonstrate that they were interested about their case, rather it is found that they were oblivious/ignorant about their case and it seems that for about 5 years they did not enquire about the progress or fate of their case. Their such ignorance is not found to be bona fide. 10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg, rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC, as well as the application under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar