The court established that the limitation for appeal is calculated from the original judgment date unless a valid correction alters the operative decree, and a liberal approach in condoning delays is warranted when no mala fides are present.

JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in CM No. 774 of 10.11.2023, later converted into Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2025, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1/defendant No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was allowed and the appeal was entertained.

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the judgment and decree were passed on 09.12.2022 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. In the memo of parties and in the decree sheet, the trial Court omitted to mention the legal representatives of defendants No. 2 to 4. Consequently, the legal representative of defendant No. 2, namely Pardeep Sharma, filed an application for correction under Section 152 CPC on 31.01.2023, which was allowed on 17.07.2023.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff thereafter filed an execution petition on 18.04.2024. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1, through his legal representatives, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2022 on 10.11.2023. Thus, there was a delay of around 305 days in filing the appeal. However, in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the respondents counted the delay only from 17.07.2023, i.e. the date when the correction application was allowed, and represented the delay to be 63 days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the learned appellate Court committed a grave error in calculating the delay as 63 days instead of 305 days. The decree which was sought to be challenged was dated 09.12.2022, and the correction order dated 17.07.2023 only pertained to inserting the names of the legal representatives of defendants No. 2 to 4. That correction did not in any way hamper or bar respondent No. 1 from filing the appeal against the decree dated 09.12.2022. Therefore, the limitation period should have been reckoned from 09.12.2022.

5. It was further argued that respondent No.1 misled the Court by depicting the delay as only 63 days, whereas in fact it was 305 days. The petitioner thus alleged fraud and contended that the application for condonation ought to have been dismissed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary , 2025 (91) Indian Civil Cases 753 (SC).

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 submitted that the delay was occasioned due to illness of appellant No. 1, who was pursuing the litigation. It was pleaded in the application that in the first week of September 2023, appellant No.1 fell ill with viral fever and thereafter suffered from weakness and could not recover sufficiently to attend to his affairs till the end of October 2023. Thereafter, the appeal was promptly filed on 10.11.2023. It was submitted that liberal approach should be taken in the interest of justice.

7. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record carefully.

8. The first and foremost issue that arises is whether the limitation period for filing the appeal was to be reckoned from the date of the original judgment and decree, i.e. 09.12.2022, or from the date of correction order dated 17.07.2023? This Court is of the considered view that the correction under Section 152 CPC merely inserted the names of the legal representatives of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and did not alter the operati