Smt. Shanti Bai vs Smt. Kusum Bai

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83959
1 SA-3084-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 3084 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010815802025
SMT. SHANTI BAI AND ANR
Versus
SMT. KUSUM BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Shashi Tripathi - Advocate for the appellants.
Shir Brajesh Kumar Rajak - Advocate for the respondents.
Shri Ramji Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is
finally heard.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been preferred by the appellant/defendants no. 2 and 4, being aggrieved by
the judgment and decree dated 14/08/2025 passed in MJC No.72 of 2025 by
the Principal District Judge, District Anuppur, whereby application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the first
appeal has been rejected and in consequence, the appeal has been dismissed
as barred by time, the result whereof is affirmation of the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court.
3. The respondent no.1/plaintiff had instituted an action before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
16:54:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83959
2 SA-3084-2025
trial court for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The same was

contested by defendants no.2 and 4 also by filing their written statement. By
judgment and decree dated 05/08/2024, the plaintiff's claim was decreed by
the trial court. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants no.2 and 4 preferred
an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the Lower Appellate Court.
Since the same was barred by time, they also preferred an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the
same. The application was contested by the plaintiff by filing her reply to the
same. By the impugned judgment, the Lower Appellate Court has held that
defendants no.2 and 4 have failed to furnish sufficient reasons for the delay
in filing of the appeal, and in consequence, has rejected the application for
condonation of delay and the appeal has also been dismissed as barred by
time.
4. By order dated 27/07/2026, the appeal was admitted on the
following substantial question of law...

"Whether the lower appellate Court has committed a
gross error of law in rejecting the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellants
and in consequence dismissing the appeal as barred by
time?"

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
6. The judgment and decree was passed by the trial court on
05/08/2024, whereas the appeal was preferred on 22/03/2025 i.e. with a delay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
16:54:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83959
3 SA-3084-2025
of about six months. In the application for condonation of delay, it was

specifically stated by defendants no.2 and 4 that they are illiterate villagers
and cannot read and write. Defendant no.2 was the main person who was
looking after the case, but she fell sick on 14/08/2024 and was treated in the
government hospital for a number of months. She was also taken to
Chhattisgarh for her treatment in February 2025. Due to the same, they could
not contact their counsel before the trial court, and for that reason did not
acquire knowledge of the judgment and decree passed by it. When they
contacted their counsel, they were told about the judgment and decree on
04/03/2025, after which they promptly preferred the appeal.
7. The Lower Appellate Court has observed that the medical
documents of treatment which have been produced by defendants no.2 and 4
are of September and October 2024 itself, and no document thereafter has
been filed hence it cannot be said that the reason furnished by defendants no.
2 and 4 is sufficient.
8. It is observed that the delay in preferring of the appeal was about
six months. Defendants no.2 and 4 are admittedly villagers and ladies and are
not acquainted with the legal requirements and procedures. It was
categorically stated by them on affidavit that defendant no.2 had fallen sick
and was treated for the same for a considerable period of time, due to which
they could not contact their counsel. The documents as regards illness of
defendant no.1 were also filed. If it had been stated that thereafter also the
illness of defendant no.2 continued, there was no reason not to believe the
same. The day-to-day delay in filing of the appeal is not required to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
16:54:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83959
4 SA-3084-2025
explained and it is the sufficiency of the overall reason which has to be taken

into consideration. A decree of declaration and permanent injunction has
been passed against defendants no.2 and 4, hence it cannot be said that they
would gain any advantage by preferring the appeal beyond time. It is not a
case where the delay has been actuated by mala fides. It is well settled that in
the matters of condonation of delay, a liberal view ought to be adopted so as
to advance substantial justice, whereas in the present case, Lower Appellate
Court has proceeded with the matter with a view to find fault with the case
of defendants no.2 and 4.
9. In my opinion, defendants no.2 and 4 had furnished sufficient
reasons for the delay in preferring of the appeal before the Lower Appellate
Court, which ought to have been condoned, but in not doing so it has acted
illegally. Consequently, the substantial question of law as framed is answered
in favour of defendants no.2 and 4 and against the respondents. The
judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside. The
delay in preferring of the appeal by defendants no. 2 and 4 before it is
condoned and it is directed to decide their appeal on merits.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
11. Let the record of the courts below be sent back to the Lower
Appellate Court.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
irfan

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
16:54:21