An appellate court cannot entertain a time-barred appeal without first condoning the delay in accordance with the Limitation Act.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

The fundamental purpose of prescribing limitation is to bring closure to litigation, thereby ensuring that legal disputes are resolved in a timely manner and that perpetual uncertainty is prevented.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’), by which the appeal submitted by the petitioners against the judgment dated 04.11.2010 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘RAA’) has been rejected.

Contentions of the petitioner:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit filed by the petitioners for correction of entries in the revenue record was decreed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (for short, ‘SDO’) on 29.07.1964. Counsel submits that after a period of 44 years, a time barred appeal was submitted by the respondent against the said judgment before the RAA, without submitting an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Counsel submits that this material aspect has not been appreciated by the RAA and without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the RAA vide judgment dated 04.11.2010, which was assailed by the petitioners by way of filing a second appeal before the Board, but the Board has also overlooked this material aspect of the matter and erred in rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioners. Counsel submits that unless and until, an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT is submitted and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to allow the appeal and subsequently, quash & set-aside the judgment passed by the Sub-ordinate Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mamtaz and Others vs. Gulsuma alias Kulusuma reported in 2022 (4) SCC 555 . Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

Contentions by the rival side:

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that an ex-parte decree was passed against the respondent by the Sub Divisional Officer. Counsel submits that land belonging to a person of the Schedule Caste category cannot be sold to a person belonging to the General Caste category, as such sale is hit by Section 42 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the decree passed by the SDO was null and void and the same was rightly quashed and set-aside by the RAA and the same has been rightly upheld by the Board, by rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioners. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

Discussions, Analysis & Findings:

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. This Court is not entering into the controversy as to whether the land in question was rightly sold or not and whether the petitioners were having rightful claim over the subject property or not.

6. The only question which remains for the consideration of this Court is “Whether an Appellate Court can hear and decide a time barred appeal without condoning the delay in filing the same ?”

7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pe