JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. HARIOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 8.12.2017 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Guna in MJC No.61/2017 by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was allowed and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

(2.) The controversy in question revolves in a very narrow compass. The respondents No.1 to 3 had suffered a judgment and decree dated 24.1.2017. The appeal was filed belatedly along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act on the ground that their Advocate had not informed them about the judgment and decree passed by the court below and, accordingly it was submitted that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The application filed by respondents No.1 to 3 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was opposed by the petitioners. The application has been allowed by the First Appellate Court by impugned order dated 8.12.2017.

(3.) By referring to the observations made by the court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the court below itself has come to a conclusion that respondents No.1 to 3 had knowledge of the judgment and decree and in spite of that they themselves were negligent and responsible for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is further observed by the court below that no sufficient reason has been shown, however, in order to avoid any hardship to the respondents No.1 to 3, it is submitted that the court below has condoned the delay. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that once the proceedings had become barred by limitation, then it can be said that a right has accrued in favour of the opposite party which cannot be taken away in a lighter manner. Once the court below had already come to a conclusion that the grounds raised by the respondents No.1 to 3 in their application seeking condonation of delay were factually incorrect and they were aware of passing of the judgment and decree and still they deliberately did not file an appeal within the period of limitation and the reasons assigned by the respondents No.1 to 3 for condonation of delay are not bonafide and are not sufficient to condone the delay, then the court below should not have adopted a lenient view for condoning the delay. It is further submitted that for condonation of delay, the appellant is required to explain the delay on day to day basis and when he himself was negligent in prosecuting his cause, then he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong by mentioning that otherwise he would suffer hardship.