Allowed¶7

Lakhan v. Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jan 2024MCC/755/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCC No. 755 of 2018; order dated 22.01.2024 by Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; applicants Lakhan, Panna, Mahesh, Ganesh, Kailash, Balaram and Ku. Hirondi Bai vs legal heirs of Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Dev Narayan Sahu, Bhojram Sahu) and State; condonation of delay of 1986 days; restoration of first appeal FA No.461/1996; dismissal for want of prosecution on 15.03.2013; case missing from cause list; long listing gap after 31.03.2003 / 17.11.2005; execution application dated 07.07.2019; I.A. No. 1/2018; advocate Basant Dewangan; advocate Vinod Kumar Sharma; Deputy G.A. Pragya Pandey.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1986 days in filing MCC No. 755 of 2018 condoned (I.A. No.1/2018 allowed) and FA No.461/1996 restored to its original number. ¶7

Lakhan Vs Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCC No. 755 of 2018

¶5

1. Lakhan S/o Lakhiram Sahu, Cultivators Of Village Mahua, P. O. Jheet, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Panna S/o Lakhiram Sahu, Cultivators Of Village Mahua, P. O. Jheet, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

3. Mahesh S/o Lakhiram Sahu, Cultivators Of Village Mahua, P. O. Jheet, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

4. Ganesh S/o Lakhiram Sahu, Cultivators Of Village Mahua, P. O. Jheet, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

5. Kailash S/o Lakhiram Sahu, Cultivators Of Village Mahua, P. O. Jheet, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

6. Balaram S/o Lakhiram Sahu, Cultivators Of Village Mahua, P. O. Jheet, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

7. Ku. Hirondi Bai D/o Lakhiram, Cultivators Of Village Mahua, P. O. Jheet, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Applicants

¶13

Versus

¶14

1. Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 17/02/2021.

¶15

1(A) Dev Narayan Sahu S/o Ramnath Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Kopedeeh Police Station Jhit Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶16

1(B) Bhojram Sahu S/o Ramnath Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o

¶17

¶18

Village Kopedeeh Police Station Jhit Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2. State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Through Collector, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶20

---- Non-applicants

¶21

For Applicants : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For non-applicants No.1(A) & 1(B) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State/non-applicant No.2 : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy G.A.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

22.01.2024

¶25

1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2018 (application for condonation of delay) as well as MCC for restoration of FA No.461/1996, which has been filed by the applicant belatedly.

¶26

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that FA No. 461/1996 was listed for hearing on 15.03.2013, but due to nonappearance of the applicant as well as his counsel, it was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further submitted that the then counsel for applicant could not find instant case in the cause list, therefore, neither applicant was present, nor represented by any counsel. It is further submitted that, only after execution proceeding initiated by the respondent before the trial Court, the applicant came to know about the dismissal of the first appeal. It is further submitted that first appeal was listed for hearing on 17.11.2005 and thereafter, it was listed on 15.03.2013 i.e., after about 8 years and abruptly on the same day, i.e., 15.03.2013,

¶27

¶28

appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further submitted that appellant wants to contest the appeal on merit, hence, it is prayed that delay in filing MCC may be condoned and the aforesaid first appeal be restored for hearing.

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1(A) & 1(B) have filed reply to both the applications, i.e., application for condonation of delay and MCC, application for restoration of first appeal. Referring to contentions of reply, he would submit that instant MCC has been filed after delay of 1986 days and no sufficient cause has been shown that why such a huge delay is occurred. He would further submit that, the non-applicants No.1(A) & 1(B) have filed execution application on 07.07.2019, but instant MCC has been filed by the applicant on 20.09.2018, therefore, reason given by the applicant, that only after filing of execution proceeding by the non-applicants, he came to know about the dismissal of first appeal, is totally wrong. It is prayed that since no sufficient cause has been given by the applicant for such a huge delay of 1986 days in filing instant MCC, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, as well as record of FA No.461/1996.

¶31

5. Perusal of order sheets of First Appeal shows that aforesaid appeal was listed for hearing on 31.03.2003, thereafter, case was directed to be listed on 10.04.2003, but despite giving fixed date, the case was not listed on 10.04.2023, rather after 31.03.2003, the case was listed directly on 15.03.2013 i.e., after about 10 years and on the same day, first appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶32

6. Considering the aforesaid fact, the submission made by the

¶33

¶34

counsel for the applicant, in the application for condonation of delay is found to be correct that counsel could not trace out his case in the cause list. Therefore, I.A. No.1/2018, application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 1986 days in filing the MCC is hereby condoned.

¶35

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and also the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant that, appellant wants to contest the case on merits and for the reasons mentioned in the MCC, the same is allowed and FA No.461/1996 is hereby restored to its original number.

¶36

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶37

Rukhsar/Deepti Jha

Lakhan v. Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan v. Smt. Bhagwati Bai (Died) Through Legal Heirs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Ram Vs Kriparam Dhobi

Dinesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyanarayan Yadav Vs State Bank of India

Ramesh Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kharru Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh