Distt.Education And Training Centre vs Smt.Maya Balwani

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
1 SA-468-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
th
ON THE 17 OF JULY, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 468 of 2007
DISTT.EDUCATION AND TRAINING CENTRE AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT.MAYA BALWANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Jain - Government Advocate for the appellants/ State.
Shri N.K. Gupta - learned Senior counsel with Shri Ravi Shankar
Gupta and Shri Saket Sharma - Advocates for the respondent.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2003 passed by the District
Judge, Datia in Civil Appeal No.18-A/2002.
2. This appeal has been filed on 18.06.2007. Since there is delay of
1202 days in filing this appeal, therefore, I.A. No.9552/2007 has been filed
seeking condonation of delay. Subsequently, the appellants have filed
another I.A. No.832/2026 seeking condonation of delay.
3. Reply to these applications have been filed by the respondent.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the
question of condonation of delay.
5 . In the aforesaid applications, appellants have averred that the
Government Advocate, who was appearing for the Government in First
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
2 SA-468-2007
Appeal, did not inform about the disposal of the appeal to the concerned

officers. The respondent also did not produce the copy of judgment and
decree before the appellants. It is only in the month of December, 2006
when respondent started construction work over the plot in question, on
enquiry, factum of passing of the impugned judgment and decree came to the
knowledge of the appellants/State.
6 . It is also stated that appellants/State immediately approached the
Additional Government Advocate for legal opinion on 24.01.2007. Legal
opinion was given on the same day and the appellants were advised to file
the second appeal before this Court. It is further stated in the application that
application for obtaining certified copy of the record of the case including the
impugned judgment and decree was made, which was received on
28.01.2007. Thereafter, appellant no.2 wrote to appellant no.1 on 07.02.2007
and sought his guidance. Appellant No.1 appointed Principal, Government
B.Ed College as OIC of the case on 22.07.2007. In the application I.A.
No.832/2026, it is also stated that the Collector, Datia wrote to Principal
Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department on 24.02.2007 and sought
permission to file the present appeal. It is further stated in the application that
permission was granted on 08.05.2007. Accordingly, this appeal was filed on
18.06.2007.
7. The respondent no.1 filed an I.A. No.2304/2006, wherein the copies
of the order-sheets of the execution case have been brought on record. From
these order-sheets, it is gathered that execution application under Order XXI
Rule 11 CPC was filed by respondent no.1 on 05.11.2004. The judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
3 SA-468-2007
debtor/appellants entered appearance in the execution case on 21.09.2005.

From the order-sheets of the execution case, assertion made in the
application for condonation of delay that knowledge of the impugned
judgment and decree was gathered in December, 2007 by the appellants,
found to be incorrect. In fact, appellants/ State was aware about passing of
the impugned judgment and decree atleast on 21.09.2005.
8. Another important aspect to be taken into account is that, this Court
took a serious view of lethargic approach of the Government Officials and
passed a detailed order on 15.01.2026. This Court noted that the Collector or
the Officers superior to him are completely negligent in prosecuting civil
cases before the High Court and issued direction to the Chief Secretary of the
State of Madhya Pradesh to file his personal affidavit stating as to whether
the Government intends to take any action against the erring officers or not.
9. In response to this order, affidavit of the Chief Secretary of the State
of Madhya Pradesh has been filed on 23.01.2026. In the affidavit, it is stated
that the Collector, Datia has constituted a three members committee headed
by the Additional Collector, Datia and the Committee is obliged to submit a
detailed report with its recommendation within fifteen days. It is further
stated in the affidavit that show cause notices have been issued (presumably
to the erring officers) under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and they have been directed to submit their
explanation within 03 days. It is also stated in the affidavit that after
receiving explanation from the erring officers, proper punitive departmental
action shall be taken against them.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
4 SA-468-2007
10. The case thereafter, came up for hearing on 06.02.2026. On the

said date, learned Government Advocate informed this Court that a
preliminary enquiry has been conducted and the persons who were prima-
facie found guilty, have been shortlisted. It was informed that on 06.02.2026
itself, Collector, Datia has forwarded his recommendation for taking
departmental action against the erring officers. He prayed for 02 days' time to
place necessary information on record. Time was accordingly granted.
11. Matter was then listed on 13.02.2026 and 29.02.2026 and the same
was adjourned without any progress.
12. On 16.06.2026, the Government Advocate again sought time to
comply with the order dated 15.01.2026.
13. The action taken report vide I.A. No.2131/2026 has been filed on
28.02.2026. As per this report, disciplinary action against the erring officers
named in paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 has been recommended.
1 4 . Yet another action taken report has been filed vide I.A.
No.4915/2026 on 23.06.2026, whereby it is again reiterated that the action is
proposed against the erring officers.
15. Till today, learned Government Advocate could not inform this
Court that whether any action has been taken against the erring officers or
not ?
16. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the intention of the
appellants/State to take action against the erring officers is nothing but only
an eyewash.
17. The Apex Court has held repeatedly that the Govt. cannot claim
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
5 SA-468-2007
any special privilege in the matter of condonation of delay. In the case of

Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another
reported in (2012)3 SCC 563, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraphs 27,
28 & 29 held as under:
"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware
or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of
limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in
this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with
court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation,
we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically
merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party
before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of
condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier
decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in
view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of
limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
6 SA-468-2007
and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there

is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the
process. The government departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few."
18. Relying upon Postmaster General (supra), the Apex Court in the
case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Bherulal reported in
(2020)10 SCC 654 held in paragraphs 6 & 7 as under:
"6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being
adopted in what we have categorised earlier as “certificate cases”. The object
appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to
put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because
the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality
and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is
followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a
practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of
coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government
suffers losses, it is time when the officer concerned responsible for the same
bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is
taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
7 SA-468-2007
that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions,

straightaway the counsel appear to address on merits without referring even
to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the
counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.
7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all
matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or
State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time
which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers
responsible."
19. It is thus, evident that appellants/State cannot be allowed to take
advantage of their status as Government, unless, it gives a plausible
explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, delay
cannot be condoned.
20. As observed hereinabove, it is the case of the appellants/State that
they gathered the information about the impugned judgment and decree in
December’ 2007. However, the said stand of the appellants/State is falsified
from the order-sheets of the execution case filed by respondent no.1 wherein
it is seen that the appellants entered appearance in the case in September’
2005. Thus, stand taken by the appellants is found to be false and incorrect.
21. This Court had given opportunity to the appellants to show their
bonafide by taking action against the erring officers. The order in this regard
was passed on 15.01.2026, however, despite lapse of 06 months, no action
has been taken by the appellants/ State. As per the Government Advocate,
only charge-sheet has been issued and the matter is pending.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
8 SA-468-2007
22. Recently, this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior

Vs. Shri Mohan Lal Saraf Memorial Charitable Trust, Morar, Gwalior
reported in 2025(4) MPLJ 346 had an occasion to deal with the issue of
delay in filing the first appeal by the Municipal Corporation. After taking
note of various authorities of the Apex Court, this Court held in para 31 as
under:
"31. Thus, from the judgments relied upon by counsel for respondents,
it is gathered that, even when the appellant before the Court is State
Government, the delay was not condoned holding that the law of limitation
does not differentiate between private litigant and the Government. Further,
when the delay is inordinate, it is definitely a relevant aspect to be
considered. A lenient approach may be adopted where the delay is less and
reasonable, however, when delay is inordinate, the explanation for the same
needs to be sufficient for its condonation."
23. In their application for condonation of delay, I.A. No.832/2026,
the appellants have referred to following judgments of the Apex Court as
well as of this Court:-
AIR 1996 SC 1623 {Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs.
K.V. Ayisumma}
AIR 1996 SC 2750 {State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and Others}
1998 (7) SCC 123 {N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy}
2000 (9) SCC 94 {State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh
& Anr.}
AIR 2009 SC 2170{D.D. Vaishnav vs State Of M.P. & Ors.}
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21512
9 SA-468-2007
2015 (4) MPLJ 502 { Exe. Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat vs

G.Arumugam (D) By Lrs.}
24. All these judgments have been passed by the Apex Court and by
this Court based upon the facts of the particular case. Even otherwise, the
traditional approach of Courts in adopting liberal approach while considering
prayer for condonation of delay by Govt., has seen a change in the recent
judgments as noted above. Therefore, the appellants do not get benefit of
these judgments.
25. In view of the aforesaid, in absence of any satisfactory explanation
for the inordinate delay of 1202 days in filing the present appeal, this Court
do not find good ground to condone the same.
2 6 . Accordingly, I.A. No.9552/2007 and I.A. No.832/2026 are
rejected.
2 7 . Consequently, this appeal also fails and the same is hereby
dismissed.


(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
VC

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 7/21/2026
10:52:02 AM