JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The instant revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar, was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed, being time barred.

2. The facts, as emanating from the present revision petition, are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants claiming itself to be the owner in possession of land measuring 23 Acres 1 Kanal and 17 Marlas (fully detailed in the plaint) situated in Village Achintkot, Tehsil Amritsar-II/Attari District Amritsar.

3. The defendants contested the said suit by filing their written statements. Parties led their respective evidence.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2019, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar being barred by limitation, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. However, none appeared for the respondents on the date of arguments.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first Appellate Court erred in law in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was further argued that the delay in filing the appeal had properly been explained. It was further argued that one Amrik Singh, Ex-Sarpanch was pursuing the litigation in the civil suit and as a result of the elections of the Gram Panchayat held in December, 2018, a new Sarpanch took over the charge in January, 2019 and that no record of the case was handed over to him. It was further argued that in June, 2020, the Rural Department enquired about the status of the case/land in dispute and it was only then that the earlier Sarpanch had disclosed about the said civil suit. Thereafter, copy of the judgment and decree was applied for on 18.06.2020 which was received on 26.06.2020 and the appeal was filed on 29.07.2020. It was, thus, argued that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor willful, but due to the circumstances narrated above, which were so mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the first Appellate Court.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to examine whether the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dismissing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently, dismissing the appeal being time barred, is maintainable.

9. In Chandi Prasad and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad and others, (2004)8 SCC 724, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed in paragraph 30 that when the dismissal of an appeal takes place on the ground of it being time barred, no decree is passed. However, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was totally different (as reproduced below):-

'1. What would be the date from which a decree becomes enforceable for execution thereof within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act) is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and decree dated 30.3.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8954 of 2001.'

10. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shree Sumer Cotton Mills Vs. Firm Gupta Cotton Company and others, AIR 2005 P&H 233, as also a Division Bench of this Court in Des Raj Vs. Om Parkash and another, AIR 1986 P&H 3, took the view that when an applicatio