Case Details

  • Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2793/2026, arising from impugned final judgment dated 11‑03‑2025 in MA No. 5927/2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Principal Seat at Jabalpur).
  • Hearing date: 29‑05‑2026; listing (submission) date ordered: 07‑08‑2026.
  • Order dated 02‑06‑2026 (timestamp 16:33:19 IST) by the Supreme Court.

Parties Involved

  • Petitioner: Manoj.
  • Respondents: Sushmabai & Anr; Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company (unnamed).
  • Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Gourave Kumar Agarwal, Advocate on Record.
  • Counsel for respondents: Mr. Shubham Janghu, Advocate; Ms. Ishita Agarwal, Advocate; Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate on Record.
  • Court: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan.
  • Court Master (SH) Assistant Registrar: SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA; also ANJALI PANWAR.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • Petitioner seeks condonation of delay in refiling/curing defects (IA No. 327921/2025) and exemption from filing O.T. (IA No. 327922/2025).
  • Central request: permission to bring the insurance policy on record, which was not previously filed.

Findings & Observations

  • The Court, after hearing counsel, held a tentative view that no interference with the High Court order was required.
  • However, recognizing the petitioner's plea, the Court exercised discretion to grant a final indulgence.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • The Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on 07‑08‑2026, allowing the petitioner to submit the insurance policy.
  • Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) is permitted to file its counter‑affidavit before the next listing.
  • The operation of the impugned High Court order dated 11‑03‑2025 shall remain stayed until the next listing.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • Petitioner must bring the insurance policy on record by the listing date of 07‑08‑2026.
  • Respondent No.2 must file its counter‑affidavit within the same period.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • No interference with the High Court judgment apart from the stay; the stay remains effective.
  • The Court’s directions are enforceable, and any non‑compliance may invite further contempt or procedural consequences as per law.