A revision under Article 227 does not lie against the refusal to condone delay in filing an appeal when no jurisdictional error is established; timely filing of appeals is essential.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

BUDI HABUNG, J.

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. The present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tezu, Lohit District [in short ‘learned Appellate Court’] in Misc. Petition No.01/2024 in Title Appeal No.01/2024, whereby the application for condonation of delay of 804 days in filing the connected civil appeal against the Kebang decision dated 17.04.2022 was rejected.

3. The learned Appellate Court (Civil Judge) while rejecting the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act recorded its finding that there was an inordinate delay of about 804 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner has not furnished proper explanation; he did not apply for a certified copy of the impugned Kebang decision within reasonable time; the applicant failed to show due diligence, thereby slept over his right. As such, no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay.

4. Assailing the said order, the petitioner contends that the petitioner had no knowledge of the Kebang decision dated 17.04.2022, and therefore could not obtain a certified copy of the said order in time, resulting in a delay of 804 days in filing the connected appeal before the learned Appellate Court. He further submits that, while considering the application for condonation of delay, the learned Appellate Court did not properly appreciate the petitioner’s contention that he had no knowledge of the second Kebang decision and, therefore, could not obtain the certified copy of the impugned Kebang decision.

5. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted he could not satisfy this Court that, while filing the civil revision petition, he has not taken the ground of lack of jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or exercise of jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed by law.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the respondent, raises objection as to the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE . He contends that the only order challenged is the refusal to condone the delay of 804 days and the consequential dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. Such an order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, but is a decision rendered within the jurisdiction of the Court. It is also submitted that a revision under Section 115 of the CPC does not lie against a decree, as the scope of Section 115 is confined to jurisdictional errors alone. It is not the case of the petitioner that the learned Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction. He further submits as the order impugned is one passed in exercise of discretion within jurisdiction and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be invoked to re-open findings on limitation or to revive a dismissed appeal.

7. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in Kamla Devi v. Khushal Kanwar , reported in (2006) 13 SCC 295, wherein it was held that “a revision cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which the petitioner failed to pursue within limitation. The order refusing to condone delay is a ‘final order’ that results in dismissal of the appeal itself. This order is appealable, not