Partition Plaintiffs Get Merits Hearing After MP HC Condoned 41-Day Delay, Accepting They Learned Of Trial Loss Only Later

The plaintiffs’ suit for declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court on 27 October 2023.

They filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

They stated that their former counsel had not informed them of the trial Court’s decision and that they first learned of it on 4 January 2024, after which they obtained a certified copy and filed the appeal.

The lower appellate Court rejected the application for want of sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

The plaintiffs challenged that decision in this second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits an appeal to be admitted after the prescribed period where the appellant establishes “sufficient cause” for the delay.

In applying that standard, the Court stated that a liberal approach should be adopted to advance substantial justice, particularly where the delay is not inordinate and is not actuated by mala fides.

The appeal before the High Court was brought under Section 100 CPC.

No precedent was cited in the judgment.

The High Court considered the plaintiffs’ explanation that their former counsel had not disclosed the result of the trial and that they learned of the judgment only after consulting another lawyer.

It found no basis for the lower appellate Court’s disbelief of that explanation and observed that the plaintiffs had no apparent reason to delay challenging the dismissal of their claim.

Given that the delay was approximately 40 days (described as 41 days in the Court’s reasoning), was not alleged to be mala fide, and was supported by an explanation the High Court found sufficient, the lower appellate Court’s refusal to condone it was legally erroneous.

It set aside the lower appellate Court’s judgment and decree and remanded the first appeal for decision on its merits.

The second appeal was allowed and disposed of without costs.