Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Union Of India & Ors. vs Mohanlal Jain Judgement Given By: ... on 19 February, 2014
Second Appeal No. 1501 / 2005
( Union of India & others . Vs. ..Mohanlal Jain )
19-02-2014
Heard Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the
appellants on the question of admission.
The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved
by the judgment and decree dated 26-2-2005 passed by
the IVth Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur, in C.A.No.
6A/2001 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree
dated 28-9-1992 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge Class-I,
Chhatarpur whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff
for renewal of licence for running a tea and refreshment stall in the premises of the Khajuraho Airport was decreed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the First Appellate Court has wrongly dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the appellants had filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Court on 11-10-1995 after a lapse of three years which had occurred on account of administrative lapses for which adequate, cogent and bona fide reasons were stated by them before the appellate Court but the appellate Court has rejected the application for condonation of delay and has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
It is submitted that the aforesaid facts give rise to a substantial question of law more so as the judgment and decree passed by the Court below which purports to grant a mandatory injunction against the respondents directing repeated perpetual renewal of the licence in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is beyond the scope of the prayer made by the plaintiff/respondent.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and after a perusal of the record it is observed that the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding to the effect that the officers of the appellants had due and proper knowledge of the decree dated 28-9-1992 passed by the Trial Court in spite of which they chose not to file an appeal for a long period of three years. The First Appellate Court has held that as the appellants had knowledge about the judgment and decree, therefore, the reasons for committing three years' delay in filing the appeal is unacceptable as it indicates total negligence on the part of the appellants and also indicate that the appellants had no intention of challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the judgment and decree of the Courts below as it is an admitted fact that the appellants participated in the proceedings before the trial Court and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 28-9-1992 was within their knowledge in spite of which they waited for a long period of three years without any justifiable or acceptable cause before filing the first appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, as no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the same being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
It is, however, observed that the judgment and decree of the Court below would not preclude the appellants from taking any action against the respondent/plaintiff for breach of any terms of the licence or lease and taking up eviction proceedings against him in that regard and if any such proceedings has already been taken up, the same shall not be effected or hampered by the present judgment and decree.
With the aforesaid clarification and observation the appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed.
(R.S.Jha) Judge mct