SMT. LALMUNI YADAV vs PUNNULAL UPADHYAY

1


2026:CGHC:26087

RUKHSAR
BANO
NAFR
Digitally signed by
RUKHSAR BANO
Date: 2026.06.29
10:49:10 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 553 of 2026
1 - Smt. Lalmuni Yadav W/o Late Rajnarayan Yadav Aged About 55 Years Resident
Of Pahadi Chowk Near Ambedkar Chowk P.S. Gudhiyari Raipur Tehsil And District-
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Ms. Sunita Yadav D/o Late Rajnarayan Yadav Aged About 29 Years Resident Of
Pahadi Chowk Near Ambedkar Chowk P.S. Gudhiyari Raipur Tehsil And District-
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Amit Kumar Yadav S/o Late Rajnarayan Yadav Aged About 25 Years Resident Of
Pahadi Chowk Near Ambedkar Chowk P.S. Gudhiyari Raipur Tehsil And District-
Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Ms. Kavita Yadav D/o Late Rajnarayan Yadav Aged About 21 Years Resident Of
Pahadi Chowk Near Ambedkar Chowk P.S. Gudhiyari Raipur Tehsil And District-
Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Ms. Anjali Yadav D/o Late Rajnarayan Yadav Aged About 21 Years Resident Of
Pahadi Chowk Near Ambedkar Chowk P.S. Gudhiyari Raipur Tehsil And District-
Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Minor Dipu Yadav S/o Late Rajnarayan Yadav Aged About 14 Years (The
Applicant No.6 Being Through Is Represented Through Her Mother I.E Applicant
No.1 Smt Lalmuni Yadav) Resident Of Pahadi Chowk Near Ambedkar Chowk P.S.
Gudhiyari Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicants
versus

2
1 - Punnulal Upadhyay S/o Makhan Lal Upadhyay Resident Of Village Deori Khurd
P.S. Torwa District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle C G 10 E 4731)
2 - Ashok Agrawal S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Agrawal Address- Karbala Road P.S.
Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle C G 10 E 4731)
3 - The New India Assurance Company Ltd Divisional Office Korba Road Bilaspur
(C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle C G 10 E 4731)
... Respondents
(Cause title, as taken from CIS)
For Applicants : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
24/06/2026
1. Heard on I.A No.01/2026, application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that MAC No.823/2016 was
filed by the applicants herein seeking compensation under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case was listed on 30.06.2016, when
two weeks’ time was granted to remove the default vide peremptory
order. However, the default could not be removed within the stipulated
period and, consequently, the case was dismissed on 03.08.2016 in
compliance with the said peremptory order. He further submits that the
applicants are poor and illiterate persons. They had engaged counsel
through the advocates representing them before the lower Court, but
the counsel representing them before the High Court did not inform
them about the status of the case. Owing to their lack of education and
knowledge of legal procedures and court formalities, the applicants
were entirely dependent upon others for pursuing their case. Due to

3
their financial constraints, illiteracy and the absence of proper legal
guidance, they could not take timely steps for filing the present
application.
3. Learned counsel further submits that since the counsel engaged before
this Court did not inform about the status of the case to the applicants
for a long period, they subsequently approached another counsel to
ascertain the status of the matter. It was only then that they came to
know that their case has been dismissed for non-compliance with the
peremptory order. He also submits that the delay occurred in filing
instant MCC is bona fide . Hence, he prays that delay of 3558 days may
be condoned by allowing the instant MCC and MAC No.823/2016 may
be restored to its original number.
4. The Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Basawaraj and Anr. vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer , (2013) 14 SCC 81 has held that the
discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based
upon the facts and circumstances of each case The expression
'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot
be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ
large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly
affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as
prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply
the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on
equitable grounds.
5. Further, in the case of Dwarika Prasad (D) through Lrs. vs. Prithvi
Raj Singh , (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3828, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held as under:-
“9. ………….It is well settled that Courts should not

4
shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford
opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on
merits. Further, we cannot let the party suffer due to
negligent or fault committed by their counsel. This
principle has been enunciated by this court in the case
of Rafiq v Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788, quoted as
follows :-
"3. The disturbing feature of the case is that
under our present their advocates, the
obligation of the parties is to select his
adversary legal system where the parties
generally appear through advocate, brief him.
pay the fees demanded by him and then trust
the learned Advocate to do the rest of the
things. The party may be a villager or may
belong to a rural area and may have no
knowledge of the court’s procedure. Alter
engaging a lawyer, the party may a villager or
may belong to a rural area and may have no
knowledge remain supremely confident that the
lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of
the hearing of the appeal, the personal
appearance of the party is not only not required
but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having
done everything in his power to effectively
participate in the proceedings can rest assured
that he has neither to go to the High Court to
inquire as to what is happening in the High
Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act
as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter
appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no
part of his job Mr AK Sanghi stated that a
practice has grown up in the High Court of
Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they
remain absent when they do not like a
particular Bench. Maybe, we do not know, he is

5
better informed in this matter Ignorance in this
behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our
seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by
dismissing this matter which may discourage
such a tendency, would it not bring justice
delivery system into disrepute What is the fault
of the party who having done everything in his
power expected of him would suffer because of
the default of his advocate If we reject this
appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the
only one who would suffer would not be the
lawyer who did not appear but the party whose
interest he represented. The problem that
agitates us is whether it is proper that the party
should suffer for the inaction, deliberate
omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The
answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that
the learned Advocate absented himself
deliberately or intentionally We have no
material for ascertaining that aspect of the
matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of
the matter. However, we cannot be a party to
an innocent party suffering injustice merely
because his chosen advocate defaulted.
Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the
order of the High Court both dismissing the
appeal and refusing to recall that order.…””
6. The other decision relied upon in this regard is the case of Imrat Lal &
Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. , (2014) 14 SCC 133. In
this case also the matter was regarding determination of compensation
for the acquired land and there was a delay of 1110 days in filing the
appeal for enhancement of compensation. Despite findings that no
sufficient cause was shown in the application for condoning the delay,

6
this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal as a large number of
similarly situate persons have been granted relief by this Court.
7. In the present case, the applicants are poor and illiterate persons who
were dependent upon their counsel for pursuing the matter before this
Court. The explanation furnished by them indicates that they remained
unaware of the dismissal of MAC No.823/2016 and came to know
about the same only when they contacted another counsel. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or actuated
by mala fides.
8. Having considered the reasons mentioned in the application, which is
well supported by an affidavit and further considering the dictum of the
Hon’ble Apex Court that a litigant ought not to be penalized for the
fault, negligence or inaction of his counsel, and in order to advance
substantial justice, this Court finds sufficient cause for condoning the
delay.
9. Accordingly, the present MCC is allowed . The delay of 3558 days in
filing the present MCC is condoned. The Registry is directed to restore
MAC No.823/2016 {Smt. Lalmuni Yadav and Ors. vs. Punnu Lal
Upadhyay and Ors.} in its original number.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar