IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict construction of Section 3 and liberal construction of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, emphasizing that rights accrue based on Section 3 and without sufficient cause, the question of condoning the delay does not arise.

JUDGMENT :

This is an Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (t) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Misc. Case No.8/2015 arising out of Title Appeal No.09/1996 wherein the application filed by the appellant herein was rejected.

2. It appears from the records that a suit was filed by the Appellant herein before the Court of the Assistant District Judge No.1 at Silchar being Title Suit No.68/1991 seeking declaration of her right, title and interest in respect to the land described in Schedule-I to the plaint and confirmation of possession. In additional to that, the Appellant had also sought for declaration that the order in Land Ceiling Case No.2/1971-72 of the Court of the Collector, Cachar (Land Ceiling Branch) was not binding upon the plaintiff/Appellant herein in respect to the land described in Schedule-I and Schedule-II to the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking over the possession of the land described in the Schedules and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/Appellant herein or allotting the same to any other person. The suit was duly contested by the defendants by filing written statement.

3. The learned Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 29.02.1996, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, i.e. the appellant herein thereby declaring the plaintiff’s right, title and interest in respect to the suit land and also confirming the possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Further to that, the defendants were permanently restrained from taking over the possession of the suit land from the plaintiff with the force of any orders passed in the Land Ceiling Proceedings.

4. Being aggrieved, the defendants filed an Appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 29.02.1996 which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.9/1996.

5. From the records of Appeal proceedings, it reveals that on 15.09.1998, the learned First Appellate Court taking into account that the notice to the last residence of the plaintiff had been returned after service fixed 31.10.1998 for necessary order. On 31.10.1998, as the plaintiff who was arrayed as respondent in the Appeal was absent, the Appeal was directed to proceed ex-parte. Subsequent thereto, the Appeal was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 15.03.1999 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. After 16 years thereafter, the Appellant claims she visited the precinct of the learned Trial Court to get back the original documents which were submitted during the trial of the said suit being Title Suit No.68/1991 and came to learn on 08.05.2015 that an Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.02.1996 passed in Title Suit No.68/1991 and the said Appeal which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.9/1996 which was decreed in favour of the appellant/defendant in the suit.

7. It is under such circumstances, an application was filed under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code for rehearing of the Appeal on the ground that the Appeal was heard without effecting due notice upon the appellant herein. The appellant herein though filed the Application under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code, but no application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1996 seeking condonation of delay. The application filed under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No.8/2015.

8. The learned First Appellate Court vide the order dated 17.01.2017, dismissed the said application holding inter-alia that merely by approaching the Court and stating that the petitioner has knowledge about the matter on a particular date, i.e. on 08.05.2015 which is after an abnormally long period without proper explanation and without supporting document cannot be sufficient in order to render the contention of