Rajasthan High Court on Revenue Suits and Condonation of Delay under Section 5, Limitation Act

 

A bench of the Rajasthan High Court has intervened to quash the decision of the Board of Revenue which had rejected a party’s application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree in a revenue suit, on the ground that the application had not been initially accompanied by a condonation-of-delay petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court restored the order of the Assistant Collector who had allowed the application and held that rules of limitation are not intended to destroy rights but to ensure timely action, reiterating that limitation merely fixes the life span of a legal remedy. In the underlying case, a revenue suit had been instituted against the petitioners and, during the proceedings, one of the petitioners was unable to appear because of his mother’s illness. As a result, an ex parte decree was passed against them. To challenge that ex parte decree, the petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC after the expiration of the limitation period by six days, providing reasons for the delay in their petition. Subsequently, a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of the delay. The Assistant Collector accepted the explanation and set aside the ex parte decree in favor of the petitioners. The respondents challenged this before the Board of Revenue, which overturned the Assistant Collector’s decision by holding that the original application under CPC was invalid as it was not accompanied by a condonation-of-delay application under the Limitation Act. The respondents argued that because the petition under CPC was not initially supported by a Section 5 application, the order granting relief was void. The petitioners countered that since their reasons for delay were fully explained in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, the absence of a simultaneous Section 5 petition should not invalidate their claim, and that they had promptly cured the deficiency by later filing the condonation petition. The High Court, in its judgment, observed that the reasons for delay had indeed been clearly delineated in the application under CPC, and that the respondents’ objection was technical and could be remedied by condonation, which the petitioners had done immediately. The court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that a superior court should not disturb a trial court’s exercise of discretion unless it is exercised on wholly untenable grounds. The court held that the Assistant Collector’s decision to allow the petition was valid and that the Board’s quashing of that order was unnecessary and incorrect. The High Court emphasized that rules of limitation exist to guard against delay and dilatory conduct, not to extinguish substantive rights, and that the petitioner’s delay and its explanation did not justify rejection of their claim. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Assistant Collector’s order setting aside the ex parte decree was reinstated.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community