The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that when the same judgment is already under appellate review, courts may condone undue delay in filing a parallel appeal - even without satisfactory explanation - on grounds of judicial economy and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a first appeal against a decree passed by the 11th District Judge, Gwalior, in RCSA No. 27/2018, dated 17.12.2021. The appeal was filed after a delay of 782 days. The State sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Procedural History
- 17.12.2021: Judgment and decree passed by the 11th District Judge, Gwalior, in favor of the respondents.
- 2022: Another defendant, the Municipal Corporation Gwalior, filed F.A. No. 1108/2022 against the same decree; delay in that appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted.
- 2024: The State filed F.A. No. 1510/2024, seeking to challenge the same decree, with a delay of 782 days.
- I.A. No. 5002/2024: Filed by the State for condonation of delay.
Relief Sought
The State sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and admission of the appeal for final hearing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay in filing an appeal when the same judgment is already subjudice before the same court, even in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The State contended that the delay was due to administrative oversight and internal procedural delays. It argued that since F.A. No. 1108/2022 had already been admitted challenging the same decree, allowing this appeal would not prejudice the respondents and would serve the interest of justice. It relied on the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents did not oppose the condonation on substantive grounds but highlighted the State’s repeated failure to file appeals within limitation. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s recent direction in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary urging strict compliance with limitation periods and accountability of public officers.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the State failed to assign any sufficient cause for the 782-day delay. It noted that the State’s conduct reflected a pattern of non-compliance with limitation periods, despite explicit judicial warnings. The Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary to emphasize that public authorities must not treat limitation as a technicality to be ignored.
"It is really shocking that even after the judgment passed by the Supreme Court... the State Authorities are not ready to mend their ways and they are out and out to ensure that appeals are not filed within the period of limitation."
However, the Court observed that the impugned decree was already the subject of a duly admitted appeal (F.A. No. 1108/2022). The record had been transferred to that appeal. Allowing this second appeal would not alter the outcome or create conflicting judgments. The Court held that in such circumstances, the doctrine of judicial economy and avoidance of redundant litigation justified a lenient approach.
The Court emphasized that condonation here was not an endorsement of delay but a pragmatic response to procedural overlap. To deter future negligence, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the State, payable directly to the Red Cross Society, Gwalior, with a direction that non-payment would trigger contempt proceedings.
The Verdict
The State won on the procedural point: the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted. The Court held that when the same decree is subjudice, condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be granted even without sufficient cause, provided no prejudice arises and judicial efficiency is served. A cost of ₹25,000 was imposed on the OIC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Condonation Is Not Automatic, But Context Matters
- Practitioners must still plead sufficient cause for delay, but courts may now consider whether the same decree is already under appellate review.
- If the record is already before the court in another appeal, the burden to oppose condonation shifts to the respondent to show actual prejudice.
- This does not override the requirement to explain delay - it merely creates a narrow exception for overlapping appeals.
Public Authorities Face Higher Scrutiny
- The Court’s reference to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary signals that public bodies will be held to stricter standards.
- Costs imposed on OICs, not the State treasury, are a new deterrent: practitioners should now advise government clients that individual officers may be personally liable for delay-related costs.
- Non-payment of costs triggers contempt: this elevates the consequence from procedural penalty to judicial sanction.
Avoiding Multiplicity Is a Valid Judicial Policy
- Courts may now treat parallel appeals against the same decree as procedural redundancies.
- Lawyers should consider consolidating challenges or withdrawing duplicate appeals to avoid adverse cost orders.
- This precedent supports applications to club appeals under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC where multiple parties challenge the same order.
