1. Suit dismissed in default — Restoration allowed — Time-barred appeal with condonation application — Interim stay without condoning delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 797
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Manni Devi, Wife of Ramprasad – Petitioner
Versus
Bhuli Devi, Wife of Shri Gangaram – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16193 of 2026
Decided On : 01-09-2026
Important Points
An appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal or grant interim relief unless the delay is first condoned, except in extreme or exceptional circumstances, as limitation is a jurisdictional requirement rather than a mere technicality.
Subject
Civil Law - Limitation Law
Act Referred
LIMITATION ACT : S.5
Headnote
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority - Question of limitation is not a mere technicality but pertains to the very jurisdiction of the Court and strikes at the root of the Appellate Authority's competence to entertain an appeal - Unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appeal cannot be said to have come into existence in the eyes of law (Paras 13 and 16).
(B) Interim Stay in Time-Barred Appeals - Interim stay order can be passed in a time-barred appeal only in extreme and exceptional circumstances where the order being appealed has serious consequences - In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, an interim stay should not be passed until the delay in filing the appeal is condoned; the appeal remains defective until the delay is condoned (Paras 17 and 18).
Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was restored to its original number by the lower court after having been dismissed in default. A time-barred appeal was filed against the restoration order after a delay of more than three years, along with an application for condonation of delay. The first appellate authority passed an interim order staying the operation of the restoration order without first condoning the delay. A revision petition against this interim order was subsequently rejected by the revenue board.
Findings of Court:
The interim stay order is not sustainable in law as no special or exceptional circumstances were recorded by the appellate authority to justify the stay in a time-barred appeal without condoning the delay and without hearing the opposing party.
Issues: Whether the first appellate authority can pass an interim order without condoning the delay in filing a time-barred appeal and whether such an appeal is defective unless the delay is condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The issue of condonation of delay must be decided at the first instance as the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal unless the delay is condoned in accordance with law. An interim stay in such proceedings is only permissible under extreme or exceptional circumstances.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; impugned orders quashed and set aside.
(B) Interim Stay in Time-Barred Appeals - Interim stay order can be passed in a time-barred appeal only in extreme and exceptional circumstances where the order being appealed has serious consequences - In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, an interim stay should not be passed until the delay in filing the appeal is condoned; the appeal remains defective until the delay is condoned (Paras 17 and 18).
Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was restored to its original number by the lower court after having been dismissed in default. A time-barred appeal was filed against the restoration order after a delay of more than three years, along with an application for condonation of delay. The first appellate authority passed an interim order staying the operation of the restoration order without first condoning the delay. A revision petition against this interim order was subsequently rejected by the revenue board.
Findings of Court:
The interim stay order is not sustainable in law as no special or exceptional circumstances were recorded by the appellate authority to justify the stay in a time-barred appeal without condoning the delay and without hearing the opposing party.
Issues: Whether the first appellate authority can pass an interim order without condoning the delay in filing a time-barred appeal and whether such an appeal is defective unless the delay is condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The issue of condonation of delay must be decided at the first instance as the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal unless the delay is condoned in accordance with law. An interim stay in such proceedings is only permissible under extreme or exceptional circumstances.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; impugned orders quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- limitation
- appeal
- civil law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Akshay Sharma Mr. Deepak Choudhary
For the Respondent:Mr. R.K. Agarwal-Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Khandelwal Mr. Aditya Gupta Mr. Pranav Sharma Mr. Keshav Dadhich
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Akshay Sharma Mr. Deepak Choudhary
For the Respondent:Mr. R.K. Agarwal-Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Khandelwal Mr. Aditya Gupta Mr. Pranav Sharma Mr. Keshav Dadhich
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued interim order cannot be passed without condoning delay; respondent argued exceptional circumstances justify interim order in time-barred appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Limitation is a jurisdictional issue; without condonation, appeal is not validly instituted; no exceptional circumstances present for interim order. (Para 11 , 13 , 16 , 17 )
4. An appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to pass an interim order in a time-barred appeal until the delay in filing is condoned. (Para 13 , 16 , 18 )
5. Interim order and revision order quashed; RAA directed to hear and decide the condonation application on merits first. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 , 25 )
6. Can an appellate court pass an interim stay order in a time-barred appeal without first condoning the delay?
No, unless exceptional circumstances exist. The appeal is not validly instituted until delay is condoned, and the court lacks jurisdiction to pass such orders. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. When is it appropriate for an appellate authority to pass an interim order in a time-barred appeal?
Only in extreme circumstances where the order under appeal has serious consequences. Such exceptional circumstances must be recorded by the authority. (Para 17 )
8. What is the legal status of an appeal filed beyond the limitation period?
An appeal filed after the limitation period is defective and cannot be treated as validly instituted unless and until the delay in filing is condoned by the court. (Para 13 , 16 , 18 )
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) submits that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was submitted by the petitioner against the defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate (for short, ‘the SDM’) wherein an interim order was passed on 14.05.2018 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Counsel submits that on account of non-appearance of the petitioner before the SDM, the said suit was dismissed in default on 25.03.2019. Thereafter, an application was submitted seeking restoration of the suit to its original number which came to be allowed on 25.01.2022 and consequently, the suit was restored to its original number. Counsel submits that a delayed appeal was submitted by the respondent against the aforesaid order after a lapse of more than three years before the Court of RAA along with an application submitted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Counsel submits that without condoning the delay, the learned RAA passed the impugned interim order dated 10.06.2026, by which effect and operation of the order dated 25.01.2022 was stayed. Counsel submits that without condoning the delay, the interim order could not have been passed by the RAA and the same has been passed illegally ignoring the due procedure of law, while keeping the appeal pending for its adjudication on merits. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted before the Board but the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 04.08.2026.
3. The core contention of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without condoning the delay in filing the time barred appeal, the interim order could not have been passed. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition seeking appropriate directions. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. M/s. Mechano and Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 204.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the respondents were not aware about the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the SDM. Hence, delay has occurred in filing the appeal against the said order before the RAA. Counsel submits that looking to the given facts and circumstances of the case, the RAA deemed it just and proper to pass the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, by which effect and operation of the order dated 25.01.2022 was stayed. Counsel submits that under the given circumstances, the interim order can be passed by the Appellate Court without condoning the delay. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Bhai Gajrota and Ors. Vs. Contractor Lime Gotan , reported in AIR 1996 Raj. 119.
5. Counsel submits that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal filed against the order dated 25.01.2022 is still pending adjudication on its merits before the first Appellate Court i.e. RAA and the revision petition against the impugned interim order dated 10.06.2026 was not maintainable before the Board, hence, the Board has not committed any error in rejecting the revision petition submitted by the petitioner.
6. Lastly, he argued that the petitioner is at liberty to appear before the RAA and raise all the available obj
