The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appeal filed against a deceased person is not maintainable and is a nullity. The court also emphasized the importance of due diligence and bona fide in pursuing appeals.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.02.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12178/2015, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge upheld the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of appellant herein, thereby upholding the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, North West, Delhi. By order dated 18.04.2012, the Deputy Commissioner had dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein under Section 64 of The Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 on the ground of limitation and did not condone the delay of 37 years in filing the said appeal.

2. Appellant claims that he along with the respondents are successors of a common ancestor namely Shri Sheo Nath, who had four sons namely Shri Sita Ram, Shri Arjun, Shri Maharam and Shri Nathan. Respondents 2 to 4 are successors of Shri Nathan. Shri Maharam died issueless. Shri Arjun left behind his widow namely, Smt. Ghoghri. The appellant is successor of late Shri Sita Ram.

3. As per the appellant, Smt. Ghoghri was the owner of 1/3 share in the land measuring 102 Bighas and 2 Biswas in khata No. 23/17, Village Ranikhera, Delhi. Smt. Ghoghri, widow of Shri Arjun, died issueless on 05.08.1973. Thus, as per the appellant, the share of Smt. Ghoghri ought to have been divided between the appellant on the one hand and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the other hand in equal shares. However, the share of late Smt. Ghoghri was mutated in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 21.07.1975 passed by Tehsildar.

4. As per the appellant, he came to know about the mutation only in the year 1992, when a suit for partition was filed on behalf of the appellant against respondents 2 to 4 in a Civil Court. However, the Civil Court held that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, a petition under Sections 11 and 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was filed on behalf of the appellant in the Court of Revenue Assistant. However, the said petition was also dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2010 thereby holding that the matter pertaining to challenge of mutation was outside the purview of the jurisdiction of Revenue Assistant.

5. Subsequently, an appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the learned Deputy Commissioner, North West District, Delhi. The said appeal was accompanied with an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 37 years in filing the said appeal. The said application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 18.04.2012. Second appeal was filed before the learned Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2015.

6. Against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 12178/2015 was filed on behalf of the appellant in this Court. By the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2020, the learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Financial Commissioner thereby holding the view taken by the Financial Commissioner that there is lack of due diligence and bona fide on the part of the appellant in pursuing the appeal after a delay of almost 36 years, was a plausible view. Thus, the present appeal came to be filed.

7. During the pendency of the present appeal, two applications being CM No. 308/2023 and CM No. 309/2023 were filed on behalf of the appellant under Order XXII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for bringing on record the legal representatives (LRs) of deceased respondent No. 3/Gian Chand, along with prayer for condonation of delay of 823 days in filing the application.

8. On b