Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Arjun Lal @ Prahlad, S/o. Late Shri Narayan Das – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Prasad, S/o. Late Shri Radhakishan Sharma – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), by which the revision petition submitted by the respondents under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) has been allowed and the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur City-II has been quashed and set-aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-respondents filed a revenue suit against the petitioners-defendants before the Assistant Collector, Jaipur City-II, wherein, the petitioners were appearing, but on account of illness of the petitioner No.2, they could not appear before the Court below on the fateful day i.e. on 13.04.2022, hence, ex-parte order was passed and decree was drawn on 29.04.2022. Counsel submits that the petitioners were not aware about passing of the ex-parte order and decree and immediately after getting knowledge of the same, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was submitted on 06.06.2022 for setting aside the ex-parte order and decree. Counsel submits that the reasons for delay were explained in the a
The court reaffirmed that procedural technicalities should not undermine substantial justice, emphasizing that minor delays in filing applications can be justified if satisfactorily explained.
Judicial review in revenue matters is confined to jurisdictional errors; adequate explanation for delay must be shown for an ex-parte decree to be set aside.
The court held that a revision under Article 227 is not maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available following the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay under the Lim....
A court must condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to ensure jurisdictional compliance.
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The court emphasized that excessive delays in filing appeals cannot be condoned without valid reasons and that the law of limitation applies equally to government entities.
The sufficiency of the cause for delay is the primary criterion for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, not merely the length of the delay.
The main legal point established is the importance of a liberal and justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications to condone delay, considering the elastic nature of the term 'sufficient cau....
In considering applications for condonation of delay, courts must assess whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated based on events leading to the delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
