Hemant Solanki vs State of Madhya Pradesh

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—On behalf of the petitioner this petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2013 (Ann. P.7), passed by the respondent No.2/ Registrar of Societies, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal in Case No.A/36/2013/S/1808/13, whereby allowing the application of the respondent No.4, the alleged delay in filing such appeal has been condoned and the same was directed to be placed on 4.1.2014 for hearing on merits.

The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that on behalf of the respondent No.4 against the order dated 9.5.2013 (Ann. P.1), passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies Jabalpur the above mentioned appeal was preferred against the petitioner and some others under Section 40 of M. P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (In short the Adhiniyam). As such appeal was filed barred by time, therefore an application under the Adhiniyam for condoning such delay by mentioning the cause in which such delay had caused was also filed. After receiving the notice of such application and appeal on behalf of the petitioner the averments of the application were disputed on the ground that whatsoever cause stated by the respondent No.4 in such application, the same could not be treated to be sufficient for condoning the alleged delay, as per requirement of provision of Adhiniyam day to day delay in filing the appeal has not been explained by mentioning the sufficient cause and in such premises the prayer for dismissal of such application was made.

On consideration the appellate authority by the impugned order (Ann. P.7), holding that in deciding the case technical points did not have material importance in comparison of deciding the case on merits with observation that on dismissing the appeal on such technical ground the dispute which is being existing in the institution since long would not be resolved and the institution could not achieve its object, has allowed the application and condoned the alleged delay and pursuant to it directed to place the matter on 4.1.2014 at 4.00 p.m. for hearing on merits, on which the petitioner has come to this court with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and by dismissing the aforesaid application of respondent No.4 dismiss the appeal as barred by time by admitting and allowing this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent at length.

Having heard the parties keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order. Now a days in view of settled proposition of law every Court or authority is bound to adopt the lenient view to consider the cause stated in the application for condoning the delay in filing alleged proceeding or appeal, as such the application for condoning the delay should be considered by the Court with justice oriented approach to do the justice between the parties on merits of the matter rather than to dismiss the matter on technical ground of limitation. Such proceeding should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation or by holding the same as barred by time unless any gross negligence is found on the part of the parties, who has filed such proceeding and I have not found such situation in the case at hand.

According to the proviso of concerning section of the Adhiniyam, the appellate authority has a right to condone the delay on its own satisfaction, as such till some extent the proviso of such provision is pari materia of provision of Section 5 of Limitation Act, and therefore aforesaid proposition was directly applicable to the case at hand.

In view of aforesaid proposition if the case at hand is examined then it is apparent from the impugned order that the impugned application of the respondent No.4 was allowed by the appellate authority stating that justice should not be lost in technicalities with further observation that by condoning the delay if appeal is not decided on merits then there shall be a great difficulty to the society to achieve its object. In such premises, in the available circumstances such approach of the appellate authority appears to be justice oriented based on sufficient cause stated by the respondent No.4 in his application and pursuant to it, the impugned order does not appears to be contrary to any law or procedure.

Apart the aforesaid it is apparent that impugned order has been passed by the appellate authority under its vested discretionary jurisdiction and it is settled proposition of law if any order is passed by subordinate authority under its vested discretionary jurisdiction and if such order is erroneous till some extent even then same could not be interfered under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India or under the revisional jurisdiction of this court, as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, and in the matter of Kokkanda B. Poondacha and Others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and Another, . In such premises also the impugned order of the appellate authority could not be said to be perverse, illegal or against propriety of law.

In view of aforesaid discussion, I have not found any merits in this petition, consequently it being devoid of any merits by affirming the impugned order of the appellate authority (Ann. P.7), this petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.