Central Motors vs Union Bank Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87579
1 CR-1267-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 1267 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010791182026
CENTRAL MOTORS
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present Civil Revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed
challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30/09/2026,
whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along
with regular First Appeal, which was filed with a delay of 176 days, has been
allowed.
2- It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a judgment
and decree dated 18/03/2025 was passed in Civil Suit : RCSB-23-B/2021 in
favor of the petitioner by the civil court. The suit was filed by the appellant
for recovery of the amount which was payable to appellant for purchase of a
vehicle.
3- It is submitted that the bank has filed an appeal under Section 96 of
CPC with a delay of 176 days alongwith an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act. The learned court below taking a lenient view and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 31-10-2026
13:21:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87579
2 CR-1267-2026
without having any material, has allowed the application, therefore, the

impugned order suffers from illegality and irregularity. It is submitted that
the learned court below holding that the delay was caused due to systematic
procedural delay, allowed the application.
4- Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in
similar circumstances of the case, Division Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rakesh Singh Jadon & ors (WA.No.3733/2026
decided on 13.10.2026) has dismissed the application for condonation of
delay and also dismissed the writ appeal.
5- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6- On perusal of the impugned order, it is found by this Court that the
respondent had preferred a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC
being aggrieved by judgment and degree dated 18/03/2025 passed in Civil
Suit No.23B of 2021 on 31/07/2026, with delay of 7 months and 21 days i.e.
about 176 days. It is also found that the certified copy of the judgment and
decree was applied on 10/01/2026, which was obtained on 28/01/2026. The
learned court below applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in regard to condonation of delay has found that the delay caused in
filing the appeal was based on bonafide and it was due to systematic and
procedure sanctions.
7- It is trite law that for consideration of application for condonation of
delay, the Courts exercise its discretionary power. The discretion has to be
exercised Judiciously and not hyper-technically. Once the litigant has
submitted before the court the reasons for not filing the proceedings within
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 31-10-2026
13:21:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87579
3 CR-1267-2026
prescribed period of time due to reasons which were beyond their control,

then the court should in its discretionary power allow the litigant to
prosecute the matter and contest it on merits.
8- The rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of the
parties and the factum of prescribing a limitation for litigation was taken into
consideration by the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs M.
Krishnamurthy, 1998 (7) SCC 123, the relevant paragraphs of which are
reproduced herein as under:
"10. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to
see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the
object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal
injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the
legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit.
During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to
seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each
remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty
and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is
enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general
welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy
the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be
kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
11. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from
putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is
always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section
5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575]
and State of West Bengal vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC
749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the
part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to
shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not
put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the
suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by
the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the
explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party
altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred
quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts
condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 31-10-2026
13:21:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87579
4 CR-1267-2026
the opposite party for his loss."

9- The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs.
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & ors. (2013) 12
SCC 649 has held as under :
"6....The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately
elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves
the ends of justice, for that is the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of
courts. The learned Judges emphasized on adoption of a liberal approach while
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as ordinarily a litigant does not
stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusal to condone delay can result in an
meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice
being defeated. It was stressed that there should not be a pedantic approach but the
doctrine that is to be kept in mind is that the matter has to be dealt with in a rational
commonsense pragmatic manner and cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred over the technical considerations. It was also ruled that there is no
presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable
negligence and that the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice on technical
grounds as it is the duty of the court to remove injustice."
10- From above enunciation of law and analysis of facts of the present
case, this Court has found that the respondent had preferred regular first
appeal with delay of 176 days for which reasons were assigned on affidavit
of the authorities of the bank. The court has found that the Andhra Bank
(earlier bank) was merged with Union Bank of India, and therefore due to
systematic and procedure delay, the appeal was filed belatedly. As the delay
is of 176 days, which was also found to be due to some procedural and
systematic delay, coupled with the fact that the respondent is a bank/
financial institution, and in any case, any financial institution has to take
prior permission from their superior officers after taking due opinion from
the counsel or the legal advisor.
11- Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the view taken
by the learned court below is justified and the delay of 176 days in filing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 31-10-2026
13:21:09

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87579
5 CR-1267-2026
appeal cannot be said to be an inordinate delay. In the considered opinion of

this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality,
irregularity, much less the jurisdictional error warranting interference by this
court under the revisional jurisdiction.
12- The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed with no orders as
to costs.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
anand

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 31-10-2026
13:21:09