LexINDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 915 : 2025 INSC 382 Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 2025) 21 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing the Second Appeal. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation of delay – When justified – Dispute over title of a land between the appellant and the Respondent-State wherein the State claimed the land to be government land in its possession – Delay of 1537 days on part of the State in filing the Second Appeal was condoned by High Court – Challenge to: Held: Impugned order upheld – Though delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, however, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation – In the present case, the dispute over title of the land is not between private parties, but rather between the private party and the State – On facts, matter requires adjudication on its own merits – Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the State claimed the land as government land in its possession, impugned order not interfered with and the Second Appeal is to be decided on merits – However, the delay is condoned subject to costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the respondent to the appellant, failing which the Second Appeal to be treated as dismissed. [Paras 14, 15, 18, 19] Limitation Act, 1963 – Constitution of India – Article 12 – Matter related to dispute over title of a land claimed by the State as government land in its possession – Delay of 1537 days on part of the State in filing the Second Appeal, condoned – State cautioned: Held: State to be cautious and exhibit promptitude in such matters, failing which the Court may not be as liberal, costs imposed – * Author 916 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation – All parties, either State or not are required to act with due diligence and promptitude. [Paras 13, 18] Case Law Cited Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India [2023] 13 SCR 743 : (2023) 10 SCC 531; Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra [1974] 2 SCR 216 : (1974) 1 SCC 317; A B Govardhan v. P Ragothaman [2024] 8 SCR 1002 : (2024) 10 SCC 613 – relied on. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare And Brothers, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151; State of Manipur v. Kotin Lamkang [2019] 13 SCR 565 : (2019) 10 SCC 408; Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector [2024] 4 SCR 241 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513; State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [2000] 3 SCR 764 : (2000) 9 SCC 94; State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality [1972] 2 SCR 874 : (1972) 1 SCC 366 – referred to. List of Acts Limitation Act, 1963, Constitution of India. List of Keywords Condonation of delay; Second Appeal; Sufficient cause; Possession of land; Government land; Suit property; Undue indulgence; Due diligence; Promptitude; Limitation; Delay of 1537 days; Dispute over title of the land; Private parties; Legal remedies; Liberal approach; Second Appeal to be decided on merits; State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India; Ordinary litigant; Costs. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in IA No. 2022 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Adv. for the Appellant: Arjun Garg. Advs. for the Respondent: Amit Sharma, A.A.G., Sarad Kumar Singhania, Kshitiz Singh. [2025] 3 S.C.R. 917 Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgement Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in I.A. No.2022/2020 in Second Appeal No.1253 of 2020 filed by the respondent, whereby the said I.A. under Section 51 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal, has been allowed with a direction for listing the Second Appeal to be heard on admission as well as the accompanying stay application. FACTS: 3. On 14.12.2012, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.17-A/2013 (hereinafter referred to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.