MP High Court calls lower court’s assumption that male relatives could not depend on a younger woman “misogynistic” and orders reconsideration of appeal delayablytyped

The appellants, legal heirs of female descendants of Jugri and her son Gorelal, sued for a share in property alleged to be ancestral.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that its ancestral character had not been proved.

The appellants’ first appeal was dismissed as 18 days out of time.

In their Section 5 application, they attributed the delay to Mohar Bai’s illness between 25 November and 12 December 2011.

The appellants challenged that dismissal in second appeal.

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of limitation.

Whether the Section 5 application could be rejected for want of evidence about Mohar Bai’s illness without first giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which an appellate court considers whether sufficient cause justifies condoning delay.

Where a party’s explanation depends on a factual ground such as illness, the party must have an opportunity to substantiate that ground before the court rejects it for want of evidence.

The Court also held that an assumption that older male family members could not depend on a younger female relative to manage family litigation is an unsupported, gender-biased basis for rejecting a delay explanation.

The First Appellate Court rejected the illness explanation because it was unsupported by documentary evidence, although the parties had been heard only on arguments and had not been given an opportunity to prove their respective contentions.

The Court held that the explanation could not lawfully be rejected for lack of evidence without first allowing the parties to lead it.

It further found that the reasoning based on the appellants’ age and gender was founded on assumptions, rather than the record, and was not a legally sound basis for disbelieving their stated dependence on Mohar Bai.

If delay is condoned, the First Appellate Court must hear and decide the first appeal on its merits.

The parties were directed to appear before that court on 15 October 2026, and the record was to be returned immediately.