SALIKRAM Vs. KESHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 1-3-2008 passed in First Appeal No. 1/2007. The said appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order holding that the same was barred by limitation. The appellants in fact filed the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14-8-2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 380-A/2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Saunsar, District Chhindwara, before the II Additional District Judge, Chhindwara. Since the appeal was barred by limitation, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condoning the delay. It was contended in the application that the appellants were rustic village people and were having no knowledge of the fate of the civil suit in which they were the defendants, It was contended in the application that the appellants could know about the passing of the judgment and decree in the civil suit only when the proceedings were initiated against them in the Revenue Court. Thereafter, on verification of the facts when they came to know that civil suit has already been decreed against them, they obtained certified copy and filed the first appeal expeditiously.

(2.) The lower Appellate Court has not accepted such a plea of the appellants only on the ground that they were being represented by the Counsel and if they have not verified the fact about the suit from their counsel, it could not be treated to be sufficient explanation of delay. It was further held that there was nothing produced to indicate that the appellants could know about the passing of impugned judgment and decree in the civil suit only when the proceedings under section 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated against them. The lower Appellate Court has recorded the fact that the information with respect to passing of the impugned judgment and decree came to the notice of the appellants on 8-11-2008 on which date they appeared before the Tahsildar where proceedings were initiated against them by the respondents. Even after this, immediately no action was taken for obtaining certified copy, which was ready on 8-12-2006 but was received only on 22-12-2006. It is also recorded by the lower Appellate Court that the appeal was filed on 4-1-2007 and, therefore, the Court below was of the opinion that there was no sufficient bona fide reason mentioned for the delay caused in filing the appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since the appellants were residing in different villages, they were not informed by their Counsel about obtaining of certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree and this fact has been categorically mentioned in the application so filed before the Court below. It is contended that the lower Appellate Court should have taken a lenient view and instead of dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, the first appeal of the appellants should have been heard and decided on merits. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the case of State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh,2009 9 SCC 94 and has contended that as per the law laid-down by the Apex Court, a lenient view should have been taken by the learned lower Appellate Court.