JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This petition is preferred under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory and revisional jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-5). By the said order, the learned Court dismissed the appeal filed against the earlier order dated 16.02.2023, whereby the petitioner’s application for restoration of the civil suit was rejected. The petitioner, aggrieved by the manifest errors apparent on the face of the record, seeks the exercise of this Court’s supervisory and revisional powers to prevent miscarriage of justice and to safeguard the petitioner’s fundamental rights and legal entitlements. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, procedural irregularity, and legal infirmity, thereby compelling intervention of this Court in the exercise of its constitutional and judicial oversight.

2. The petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking possession of the subject property. During the pendency of the proceedings, while the plaintiff’s evidence remained unrecorded, the plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit in default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2023. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order, approaches this Court invoking its revisional and supervisory jurisdiction, submitting that the dismissal is vitiated by non- application of judicial mind, manifest illegality, and disregard of settled legal principles. In the interest of justice and equity, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2023, the petitioner initially filed Civil Revision No. 2263/2023 before this Court. The said revision petition was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal, as per order dated 18.04.2023. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a Civil Appeal on 18.05.2023, which was taken up for consideration and ultimately dismissed on 12.08.2025 on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. The petitioner respectfully submits that the dismissal of the appeal on a technical ground of limitation, without considering the substantive merits and circumstances surrounding the filing, has occasioned a manifest injustice, warranting interference under the revisional and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned dismissal of the Civil Appeal on the ground of limitation. It is respectfully submitted that the appeal was filed well within the prescribed period, as the Civil Revision No. 2263/2023 was decided by this Court on 18.04.2023, and the Civil Appeal was filed on 18.05.2023 well within thirty (30) days from the dismissal of the revision petition. The learned First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that, in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation stands duly extended or exempted in circumstances where a prior revision petition had been decided by this Court. Consequently, the appeal was clearly within time, and the impugned dismissal on the ground of limitation is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, giving due attention to all arguments advanced, and have perused the record and the material on file with utmost care. The contentions raised, the sequence of events, and the applicable legal provisions have been examined in detail to arrive at a just and reasoned conclusion.

6. In the present case, the appeal was filed before the learned First Appellate Court on 18.05.2023, challenging the order dated 16.02.2023. The appeal was required to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the impugned order. The learned First Appellate Court observed that n