01Facts
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a Writ Appeal (W.A. No.3425/2025) which was dismissed on February 27, 2026, for non-compliance with a common conditional order regarding the curing of defaults.
¶ 2, 8The applicants filed the present Misc. Civil Case seeking restoration of the appeal, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 52-day delay in filing.
¶ 1, 2The State attributed the delay to procedural formalities and the Officer-In-Charge's (OIC) late discovery of the dismissal.
¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the 52-day delay in filing the restoration application.
¶ 5ii.2. Whether the Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 3425/2025) should be restored to its original number in the interest of justice.
¶ 1103Law Applied
Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the "sufficiency of cause" for condonation of delay.
¶ 1, 5Principles from Motilal Songara v. Prem Praksh alias Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199; Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531; and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online SC 1501 to emphasize hearing matters on merits.
¶ 3The principle from M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam, AIR 2001 SC 2497 and Dindayal Bansal v. Gwalior Nagar Tatha Gram Vikas Pradhikaran, 2007 (5) MPHT 470, which establishes that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of their counsel.
¶ 11Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
04Reasoning
The Court found the reasons for the delay—procedural inertia and the OIC's lack of immediate knowledge—to be genuine and bona fide.
¶ 5, 11The Court noted that the dismissal for non-compliance was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond the applicants' control.
¶ 9To balance the restoration with social responsibility, the Court introduced the concept of "Social Audit," suggesting that the counsel and OIC perform community service to satisfy the court's conscience rather than imposing a monetary cost.
¶ 12, 16The Court reasoned that such interactions provide a message of inclusion to marginalized groups and ensure oversight of state-sponsored institutions.
¶ 16, 17Restoration was made contingent upon the submission of a report regarding this visit.
¶ 18, 1905Holding
The High Court condoned the 52-day delay and allowed the restoration of W.A. No. 3425/2025.
¶ 5, 11, 19The restoration is subject to the condition that the counsel for applicants and the OIC visit Government Mook Badhir H.S. School, Jabalpur, spend one hour with inmates, and provide food items worth ₹5,000; a report and affidavit regarding this visit must be filed in the restored Writ Appeal within fifteen days.
¶ 12, 14, 18, 19Original Court PDF
The State Of Madhya PradeshvsRam Prasad Chikwa
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
