Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Balwant Singh on 17 October, 2014
S.A. No.35/2008
11.09.2014
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.
Shri Sarvesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
Matter is heard and reserved for orders.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge sh/-
S.A. No.35/2008(State of M.P. Vs. Balwant Singh) 17.10.2014 Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Sarvesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. This second appeal preferred by the defendant/State filed Section 100 CPC assails the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court rejecting first appeal for being barred by limitation by 878 days, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27.10.2004 declaring the plaintiff to be the lease-holder and in possession of the suit property and permanently injuncting the State from interferring with possession of the plaintiff The present second appeal has been filed by the State with a delay of 149 days for which an application I.A. No. 302/2008 is moved which is considered and allowed for reasons mentioned therein.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission of this second appeal.
The first Appellate Court rejected the appeal to be time barred after finding the explanation given for delay in filing the appeal as unsatisfactory. The first Appellate Court held that the decree passed by the Trial Court was a bi-parte decree passed on 27.04.2004. The lower Court further found from the S.A. No.35/2008 proceedings dated 16.06.2006 and 22.08.2006 of the Nayab Tehsildar Umri that the matter was referred to the Collector Guna, who on 05.10.2006 granted sanction for filing first appeal. In this factual background, the first Appellate Court disbelieved the statement of the Tehsildar that the factum of passing of the decree dated 27.10.2004 came to his knowledge for the first time on 15.03.2007. The first Appellate Court also considered the contention of the State that property of the State has been wrongly decreed in favour of the plaintiff, which leads to adverse effect on public interest. Finally the appellate Court founding the explanation of the delay caused in preferring the first appeal to be unsatisfactory, dismissed the first appeal as time barred.
After perusing the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, it is evident that the State failed to provide any satisfactory and bonafide explanation as to why it took more than two years for obtaining certificate from the Collector, Guna for filing this first appeal. Even thereafter the first appeal was filed as late as on 24.03.2007. The total delay in filing of first appeal was of 878 days.
True it is, that litigation by the State ought to be viewed with same amount of liberal approach as no personal interest is involved, but the fact remains that once a judgment and decree is rendered after a bi-parte hearing in a trial, where the S.A. No.35/2008 State has not only adequately pleaded but is also represented, then it becomes all the more necessary for the State to explain with cogent reasons, the delay that is caused in not assailing the judgment and decree within the prescribed time.
Delay in the present matter is not of a few days or weeks or even a few months, but is of more than 2 ½ year,s which has not been explained satisfactorily by the State. The Court while deciding the question of delay is not only required consider the public interest but also the rights and privileges which are crystallized in favour of the plaintiff due to lapse of time.
In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the factual findings of non-existence of reasonable cause to explain delay on the part of the State.
Accordingly, in the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, this Court does not see any ground to interfere. There is no scope for framing of any substantial question of law in the instant case which is accordingly dismissed sans cost.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge sh/-