A bona fide mistake or negligent advice from a lawyer may constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

1.Pursuant to order of this Court dated 28.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the thumb impressions of the petitioners on the compromise deed dated 09.01.2002. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, “BoR”) whereby, while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioners/defendants (for brevity, “defendants”), the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur allowing the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs (for brevity, “plaintiffs”) under Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, “the Act, 1963”) has been affirmed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents (for brevity, “plaintiffs”) against the defendants for declaration and correction of entries came to be dismissed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-Ist (for brevity, “trial Court”) vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2002. Thereafter, they filed another suit against the defendants qua the same agriculture land for declaration, partition and permanent injunction which came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2015 while allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC treating it to be hit by the principle of res judicata. Thereafter, the plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2002 by way of an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Alongwith the memo of appeal, they filed an application under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay. The application was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.11.2016 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the defendants before the Board of Revenue.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendants, inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 would contend that even assuming that they were unaware of the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2002, in any case, it came to their knowledge on 12.07.2012 still, the appeal was filed with a delay of about three years. He further submits that the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal has been condoned by the Revenue Courts without appreciating this important aspect of the matter. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 05.03.2024 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 be dismissed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, supporting the findings recorded by the Revenue Courts, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. While allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, the first appellate authority has held that in the suit filed by them, the parties have entered into a compromise which was submitted before the trial Court and was also verified by it. It has also relied upon the contentions of the plaintiffs that on the assurance extended by their learned counsel that the suit would be disposed of in terms of compromise, they did not proceed further; however, it came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2002. It was further held that these circumstances furnished the plaintiffs sufficient cause in filing the appeal with delay. These findings have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 05.03.2024. A perusal of the judgment dated 28.09.2002 reflects a categorical finding therein that both the parties have submitted a compromise deed dated 09.01.2002 wherein, the defendants have given their no objection if the suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed and it was further stipulated therein that the defendants have no objection if after deleting their name in the revenue record, name of the plaintiffs and the defenda