Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ram Bahor vs M/S Pariyal Das Denchandra Vikreta on 14 December, 2022

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                                     1
                                   IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                     ON THE 14 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                                       MISC. APPEAL No. 2434 of 2004

                                  BETWEEN:-
                                  RAM BAHOR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARSM, S/O SHRIU
                                  RAM KRAPAL GUPTA, R/O BAIKUNTHPLUR SIRMOUR,
                                  DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....APPELLANT
                                  (BY SHRI RUPESH SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)

                                  AND
                                  M/S PARIYAL DAS DENCHANDRA THOK VIKRETA
                                  VIKRETA SATNA, RAGHURAJ NAGAR, DISTT. SATNA
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                                  (NONE)

                                        Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                                  following:
                                                                      ORDER

This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of order dated 31/07/2004 passed by learned District Judge, Satna in Misc.Civil Case No.23/2003 refusing to condone the delay and setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07/12/2001 on the ground of delay and latches.

Shri Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that appellant was suffering from Tuberculosis and thereafter Paralysis, therefore, he could not file Signature Not Verified application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree till 24/3/2003.

Thus, delay should be condoned and appeal may be allowed.

A perusal of the record reveals that appellant has filed stale prescriptions, 2 current prescription showing illness on the date of the judgment i.e. December, 2001 is not brought on record. There is no paper to suggest that he was suffering from Tuberculosis or Paralysis or any such disease which required hospitalization or confinement to bed and he could not approach the Court. Thus, it is evident that the evidence adduced on record clearly points out that no ground could be established by the appellant to show that he was suffering from Tuberculosis or Paralysis resulting in his failure in Court in time.

When all these aspects are taken into consideration and record is perused, no ground for indulgence is caused in the appeal inasmuch as admittedly appellant could not establish the cause for delay on which application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is dismissed. There is no scope for interference.

Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2022.12.14 19:15:41 IST