Smt. Munnu Raja Bundela and Others vs Raj Kumar Bundela and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission as well as I.A. No. 7573/2012 for condonation of delay of 6 years 126 days in filing this application for restoration of S.A. No. 1045/1997 which was dismissed in default on 30.1.2006. From a perusal of the order passed by this Court on 30.1.2006 it appears that the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance of the applicants in view of the fact that the matter was called up on several occasions and that it was stated by the respondents that they had already obtained possession of the property in execution of the impugned decree.

This application for restoration has been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay stating that the applicants did not come to know about the dismissal of the appeal till 20.6.2012 when they came to enquire about the case to Jabalpur.

It is observed that the Second Appeal was of the year 1997 and was dismissed on 30.1.2006. There is no explanation as to what the applicants were doing between January 2006 to June 2012 or as to why they did not enquire about the status of the appeal during this period. There is total absence of any explanation for the delay in this regard.

The learned counsel for the respondents, who has been served with a copy, has filed a reply stating that they had already got the decree executed and had obtained possession on 19.3.1998 and that the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are not made out.

The learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the cases of Asharam and Others Vs. Smt. Gangabai and Others, and Pop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Yadav and Others, to contend that the delay in filing the application for restoration is be condoned.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and a perusal of the decision of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is observed that in both the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, there was some cogent and reasonable reason for condoning the delay in those cases, whereas in the present case there is no cogent or acceptable explanation for the delay of 6 years. The reliance place by the learned counsel for the applicants, on the aforesaid decisions, is misplaced and misconceived. In view of the aforesaid, the application for condonation of the delay and consequently the application for restoration, both stands dismissed.