Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand on Thursday struck down orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue which had entertained and allowed an appeal filed 44 years after a decree without any condonation of delay. The Court observed that the law of limitation is grounded in public policy, intended to ensure finality of disputes and prevent perpetual uncertainty, noting that litigation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely while the parties themselves are mortal. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to decide condonation before considering the appeal.

The writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan arose from an order of the Board of Revenue dated 21 April 2023. The petitioners challenged the Board’s decision affirming the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) dated 4 November 2010, which had allowed an appeal filed by the respondent against a decree passed decades earlier.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Uniform Registration of Sikh Marriages | States and UTs Directed to Frame Rules Under Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act Within Four Months

The dispute originated from a suit filed by the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) for correction of revenue entries. That suit was decreed in their favour on 29 July 1964. After a lapse of 44 years, the respondent filed an appeal against the SDO’s decree before the RAA. No application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay, was filed along with the appeal. Despite this, the RAA proceeded to entertain the appeal and by its order dated 4 November 2010 set aside the decree of the SDO.

The petitioners submitted before the High Court that unless the delay was condoned in accordance with law, the appeal was not maintainable. They contended that the RAA had no jurisdiction to allow a time-barred appeal without condonation and that the Board of Revenue erred in overlooking this issue while rejecting their second appeal. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedent in Mamtaz v. Gulsuma (2022) 4 SCC 555.

The respondent opposed the writ petition, arguing that the decree of 1964 was ex parte and pertained to land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person, which under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, could not be transferred to someone from the General category. It was submitted that the decree was void ab initio, and the RAA had rightly set it aside, with the Board correctly upholding that decision.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recorded that the central issue was “Whether an Appellate Court can hear and decide a time barred appeal without condoning the delay in filing the same?” The Court stated that “the law of limitation is founded on public policy” and cited the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, noting that it is in the general welfare that litigation must come to an end.

The Court observed: “The courts have always treated the statutes of limitation and prescription as statutes of peace and repose. They envisage that a right not exercised or the remedy not availed for a long time ceases to exist.”

Referring to Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC, the Court recorded that “at the time of presentation of an appeal which is barred by limitation, the appellant is required to file an application that he has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.” The Court further stated that “it is incumbent upon the court to decide the application before it proceeds to decide the appeal on merits.”

The Court noted the significance of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, stating: “It is the duty of the court not to proceed with the appeal if it is made beyond the period of limitation prescribed.” It added: “The question of limitation should be decided before proceeding with the appeal observing the due compliance of Section 3 of the Limitation Act which specifically states that whenever any suit, appeal or application is preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, it has to be rejected invariably unless delay is condoned.”

The Court referred to State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar (2000) 7 SCC 372, observing: “Deficiency in not filing of condonation application is a curable defect and such application can be filed subsequently.” However, in the present case, the respondent had not filed any such application at all, despite the delay spanning 44 years.

Justice Dhand noted: “It appears that both the RAA and the Board have overlooked this material aspect of the matter and the 44 years time barred appeal has been allowed without condonation of delay in filing the appeal.”

Justice Dhand directed: “Under these circumstances, the orders impugned passed by the RAA and the Board are not legally sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed and set-aside, granting liberty to the respondent to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court | No Monopoly for Existing Fair Price Shop Owners | Opening of New Shops a Policy Decision Under National Food Security Act, 2013

“The matter shall now go back to the RAA for disposal of application to condone the delay in filing the first appeal. If such an application is preferred by the respondent before the RAA, the appeal preferred by the respondent would be restored to its original number and in case, the explanation of delay is found satisfactory by the RAA, then the appeal be decided on merits strictly in accordance with law.”

“With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” No order as to costs was passed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Kabra
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishram Prajapati

Case Title: Sabuddin & Others v. Giriraj
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:36945
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10712/2023
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand