<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken an exception to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order condoning the delay of over four years in considering an appeal by terming the decision as unfortunate and the one reflecting absolute non application of mind.</p> <p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan issued notice to the Madhya Pradesh government on the special leave petition filed by Shankargir represented by advocate Dushyant Parashar.</p> <p>After hearing the counsel, the court on October 10, 2025 noted the High Court has condoned the delay of 4 years and nine months in preferring first appeal at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh.</p> <p>"We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the impugned order has been passed by the High Court. It reflects absolute non-application of mind," the bench said.</p> <p>The court issued notice returnable on November 17, 2025.</p> <p>As per details of the case, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over an agricultural land of 3.870 hectare at Village- Sejawata Tehsil and District- Ratlam on the ground that he had purchased the suit land in auction and the land is in his possession. </p> .Supreme Court upholds 8-year jail term for man who caused death of rape accused's brother .<p>In a revenue case registered, the Tehsildar by an order of July 12, 2010 held the land belonged to Math Nav Durga Math Mathkala and Nav Durga Temple.</p> <p>Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted a suit and the district judge, Ratlam by a judgment of November 25, 2019 declared him as the owner and in possession of the agricultural land. It further declared the order of Tehsildar to be null and void.</p> <p>The petitioner said the state preferred first appeal after 4 Years and nine months of the judgment of District Judge, Ratlam. </p> <p>His plea contended, the High Court accepted it on the basis of an affidavit of state without any explanation for delay, only as an eye wash, which is derogation of strict legal principles laid down in the catena of the judgments, including Shivamma Dead through Lrs Vs Karnataka Housing Board (2025), UOI Vs. Jahangir Byram ji Jee Jeebhay(d) through LRs (2024) INSC 2629, Majji Sannemma V Reddy Sridevi, Baswaraj Vs Special Land Acquisition officer (2013).</p> <p>Challenging the High Court's order of September 1, 2025, the petitioner claimed the High court was not justified in condoning the delay of 1612 days i.e. 4 Years nine months, by ignoring the state machinery's callous and lackadaisical attitude, as an act of generosity on the ground of rendering substantial justice to the prejudice to opposite party until the delays are not explained satisfactorily.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken an exception to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order condoning the delay of over four years in considering an appeal by terming the decision as unfortunate and the one reflecting absolute non application of mind.</p> <p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan issued notice to the Madhya Pradesh government on the special leave petition filed by Shankargir represented by advocate Dushyant Parashar.</p> <p>After hearing the counsel, the court on October 10, 2025 noted the High Court has condoned the delay of 4 years and nine months in preferring first appeal at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh.</p> <p>"We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the impugned order has been passed by the High Court. It reflects absolute non-application of mind," the bench said.</p> <p>The court issued notice returnable on November 17, 2025.</p> <p>As per details of the case, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over an agricultural land of 3.870 hectare at Village- Sejawata Tehsil and District- Ratlam on the ground that he had purchased the suit land in auction and the land is in his possession. </p> .Supreme Court upholds 8-year jail term for man who caused death of rape accused's brother .<p>In a revenue case registered, the Tehsildar by an order of July 12, 2010 held the land belonged to Math Nav Durga Math Mathkala and Nav Durga Temple.</p> <p>Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted a suit and the district judge, Ratlam by a judgment of November 25, 2019 declared him as the owner and in possession of the agricultural land. It further declared the order of Tehsildar to be null and void.</p> <p>The petitioner said the state preferred first appeal after 4 Years and nine months of the judgment of District Judge, Ratlam. </p> <p>His plea contended, the High Court accepted it on the basis of an affidavit of state without any explanation for delay, only as an eye wash, which is derogation of strict legal principles laid down in the catena of the judgments, including Shivamma Dead through Lrs Vs Karnataka Housing Board (2025), UOI Vs. Jahangir Byram ji Jee Jeebhay(d) through LRs (2024) INSC 2629, Majji Sannemma V Reddy Sridevi, Baswaraj Vs Special Land Acquisition officer (2013).</p> <p>Challenging the High Court's order of September 1, 2025, the petitioner claimed the High court was not justified in condoning the delay of 1612 days i.e. 4 Years nine months, by ignoring the state machinery's callous and lackadaisical attitude, as an act of generosity on the ground of rendering substantial justice to the prejudice to opposite party until the delays are not explained satisfactorily.</p>
