Municipal Corporation Ratlam vs Meena Wadhwani
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29873
1 MP-4969-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4969 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020317272026
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RATLAM
Versus
MEENA WADHWANI
Appearance:
Ms. Archana Kher - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner–Municipal
Corporation, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2026, whereby its
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of
delay in filing an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), against the order
dated 27.09.2025 passed by the trial Court, was allowed. By the order dated
27.09.2025, the trial Court had allowed the plaintiff’s application filed under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
02. The facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of the
Municipal House No. 124/3, Mohalla Lakkad Pitha Road, Ratlam. The
petitioner-Corporation initiated process of removal of construction by stating
that the construction was raised illegally. The respondent being aggrieved
preferred a Civil Suit, RCSA No. 351/2025 before the trial Court. Along
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-10-2026
17:59:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29873
2 MP-4969-2026
with the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was
also filed. The trial Court after considering submissions of both the parties
passed the order dated 27.09.2025 whereby the application of the
respondent/plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was
allowed, thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. The appellant being aggrieved by the same had earlier
filed an application for reconsideration of the order on 17.12.2025. However,
subsequently, the same was withdrawn on 26.03.2026 and on 28.03.2026,
appeal under Section XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC was filed before the Appellate
Authority challenging the order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of
CPC by the trial Court. Along with an appeal, an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act was also filed whereby it was prayed that the delay in
filing the appeal has occurred for the reason that earlier the petitioner has
filed a complaint under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC for
review of the order passed by the trial Court, however the same was
withdrawn on 26.03.2026. Hence, the appeal has been filed. Thus, the
petitioner prayed that the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and deserves
to be condoned. The Appellate Court after considering the application and
hearing both the parties rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act and consequently dismissed the appeal also vide order dated
17.04.2026. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness of the
impugned order.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the locality
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-10-2026
17:59:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29873
3 MP-4969-2026
where the house is situated, a road of 18 meter width is being constructed by
the municipal body. Except three houses, one of which is of the present
respondent, all the other residences have permitted the construction of road.
However, as the house of the present respondent is creating obstruction in
the construction of 18 meter width road, the appeal deserves to be
entertained by the Appellate Court and the delay in filing the same deserves
to be condoned in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and only for
the reason that initially an application for review was filed before the trial
Court which caused delay.
04. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of
admission of the petition and perused the case file.
05. As it can be seen from the record, the order deciding the
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was passed by the trial
Court on 27.09.2025. The appeal against the said order was required to be
filed within 30 days. As such, the last date for filing the appeal was
26.10.2025. However, till that date neither the appeal was filed nor the
review petition before the trial Court itself was filed. It is only on 17.12.2025
that review petition was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court. Thus,
the review petition itself was filed beyond the period of limitation before the
trial Court. Thus, the appellate Court has correctly declined to accept the
same as a bonafide reason for not filing the appeal within time. In fact the
limitation had already expired till the review petition was filed before the
trial Court. The appeal before the appellate Court was filed only on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-10-2026
17:59:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29873
4 MP-4969-2026
28.03.2026 for which singular explanation in the application for condonation
of delay is that as the review petition was filed, thus the appeal could not be
filed within time which for the reasons as noted above has correctly been not
accepted by the appellate Court. As such, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the application
of the petitioner filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently
dismissing the appeal itself.
06. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal
body submits that the issue involved in the present petition is pertaining to
construction of 18 meter road and the house in question is creating nuisance
in completing the project. However, a perusal of the findings recorded by the
trial Court in its order dated 27.09.2025, particularly para-10, 11 & 12 would
show that no material was placed by the officers of the municipal body
before the trial Court so as to establish the requirement of width of the road
which was to be constructed and how much part of the construction of the
respondents' house is coming in the way of the municipal body in completing
the project. These findings does not appear to be perverse as there is no
material available even before this Court which could have shown that the
trial Court has ignored the material placed by municipal body on record.
Considering the same, even this cannot be a reason for interfering in the
impugned order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate
application before the trial Court thereby pointing out the requirement of area
which is needed for consideration of road 18 meter width road in front of the
house of the respondent. If any such application is filed by the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-10-2026
17:59:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29873
5 MP-4969-2026
before the trial Court, the same shall be adverted to in accordance with the
law.
07. With the aforesaid observation, the interference is declined. Hence,
the petition is dismissed.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 26-10-2026
17:59:14