The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an appellate court order that refused to condone an 18-day delay in filing a property appeal, criticising its reasoning that elderly male members of a family could not have depended on a younger woman to handle litigation.
Justice Anuradha Shukla, while allowing a second appeal on October 1, said such reasoning was gender-biased and undermined the capability of women within a family.
The dispute arose from a civil suit in which the appellants, legal heirs of female descendants, claimed a share in property on the ground that it was ancestral.
The trial court dismissed the suit on merits after holding that the appellants had failed to establish the ancestral nature of the property.
They then approached the first appellate court, but their appeal was filed 18 days beyond the limitation period. The additional district judge declined to entertain it without examining the merits.
Delay Linked To Illness Of Woman Handling Litigation
In their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellants said the woman handling the litigation had become seriously ill, resulting in the delay. They submitted that although a certified copy of the judgment had been obtained, her illness prevented the appeal from being filed within time.
The first appellate court rejected the explanation on the ground that no document had been produced to show the nature of her illness.
The High Court, however, held that the plea of illness could not have been rejected without first giving the appellants an opportunity to produce evidence in support of it.
The court said an opportunity to lead evidence was necessary before concluding that the appellants had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay.
Court Criticises Gender-Based Assumption
The High Court also disapproved of the appellate court’s observation that other family members could not have depended on the woman for taking steps in the litigation.
Justice Shukla said there was no material on record to support such a conclusion and that the appellate court had proceeded on assumptions and conjectures.
The High Court termed the reasoning inherently gender-biased and misogynistic, observing that it diminished the capability of a female family member.
It also held that the appellate court had made an unwarranted and sceptical remark without any legal basis in the record.
Matter Sent Back To First Appellate Court
The High Court allowed the second appeal and remanded the matter to the first appellate court.
It directed the appellate court to give the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, if they chose to do so, on the application seeking condonation of delay and then decide the application in accordance with law.
The High Court further directed that if the delay is condoned, the first appellate court should hear the parties and decide the appeal on merits.
