State of M.P. vs Raghu and Another

T.S. Doabia, J.

Heard counsel.

The suit filed by the respondents was decreed. An appeal was preferred. That appeal was dismissed as having abated as legal representatives of one Raghu were not brought on the record. Against that judgment, the present appeal has been preferred. There is delay in one matter of filing the appeal. The delay is of 108 days. The legal heirs of Raghu have also not been brought on the record. The Supreme Court has observed that in the matter of condonation of delay where the state is a litigant, some latitude has to be seen. See; the following decisions:

(i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Akolkar, ; (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, ; and (iii) Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V. Ayisumma, .

As such, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The appeal is heard on merits.

The appeal was dismissed as having been abated. There was delay of 22 months. Taking into consideration the aforementioned decisions, the delay in the matter of bringing legal heirs of Raghu also condoned. While hearing the appeal it has been brought to my notice that the relevant revenue record for Samvat 2007 has not been placed on record by any of the parties. The State would make an endeavour to bring the same on record. This is because the nature of the land has to been seen on that date. Correspondingly, an opportunity would be given to the plaintiffs/respondents also to place on record the material.

The matter is accordingly remanded to the first appellate Court who would decide the appeal on merits.

The parties to appear before the first appellate Court on 6th October, 1997. If none appears on behalf of the legal heirs of Raghu, then the Court would issue notices to the legal heirs.

Disposed of accordingly.