MP HC Upholds Order Letting Union Bank Appeal Vehicle-Recovery Decree 176 Days Late After Merger-Related Delays

A civil court passed a judgment and decree in favour of Central Motors on 18 March 2025 in a suit for recovery of the amount payable for the purchase of a vehicle.

Union Bank of India filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a delay recorded as 176 days, together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The appellate court allowed the delay application, finding the delay attributable to procedural and institutional processes, including the merger of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India.

Central Motors challenged that order in revision under Section 115 CPC, arguing that the delay had been condoned without sufficient material.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits extension of time where “sufficient cause” is shown. In exercising that discretion, courts should adopt a rational and pragmatic approach that advances substantial justice, while considering whether the delay was deliberate or mala fide and remaining mindful of prejudice to the opposing party (*N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy*, 1998 (7) SCC 123; *Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy*, (2013) 12 SCC 649).

Under Section 115 CPC, a revisional court may interfere where the impugned order discloses a jurisdictional error or the requisite illegality or material irregularity; the court described the relevant revisional threshold in those terms.

The High Court noted that the bank had explained the delay by affidavit and that the appellate court attributed it to bona fide procedural and institutional steps, including the merger of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India and the processes involved in obtaining approvals to appeal.

Applying the principles in *N. Balakrishnan* and *Esha Bhattacharjee*, the Court considered the explanation sufficient and found no basis to treat the delay as deliberate or mala fide.

It also held that the delay was not so inordinate as to make the appellate court’s exercise of discretion unjustified.

The petitioner’s reliance on *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Singh Jadon* was noted, but the Court’s stated reasoning rested on the facts and principles addressed in the impugned order.

The civil revision was dismissed as without merit, with no order as to costs.