The court emphasized that objections regarding jurisdiction must be raised promptly, and health issues cited were insufficient to justify delay in filing a review application.

JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.)

Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No.135040 of 2017

1. Heard Shri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dinesh Varun, learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents.

2. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. In the interest of justice, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on the point of delay condonation application as well as merit of the review application.

3. This present Civil Misc. Delay Condonation application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the review application to review / recall the judgment passed by this Court, dated 25.01.2016, passed in First Appeal No.612 of 2003, in which, one of us (Hon'ble Justice Vivek Kumar Birla, J) was a member of the Bench. The ground taken in this Civil Misc. Application, inter-alia is that prior to delivery of judgement of this Court in First Appeal No.612 of 2003, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge was raised from Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) to Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs) vide Gazette Notification No. 1599/79-V-1-15- 1(ka)19/2015 dated 07.12.2015, Section 19 of The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act, 1987 was amended and the concerned District Judges were conferred jurisdiction to hear appeals of valuation up to Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs. Hence, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the first appeal was that of the learned District Judge and this Court ought not to have decided the first appeal, instead, the same ought to have been remanded/ transferred to the learned District Judge, Moradabad.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the pecuniary jurisdiction of learned District Judge to hear the first appeal stood raised from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- during pendency of the appeal this Court had no jurisdiction to decide the instant first appeal No.612 of 2003. He further submits that lack of jurisdiction is error apparent on the face of record and the review application has got strong merit.

5. Confronted with the situation regarding filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgement of this Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed in limine and by non speaking order and how the review petition could be maintainable before this Court, the learned counsel submits that the doctrine of merger does not apply in this case as the lack of jurisdiction is involved.

6. In so far as condonation of delay is concerned, in support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jagan Singh and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023, paragraph nos.11,12, 13 & 14 whereof reads as under:-

11. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. However, there cannot be any hard and fast rule to decide whether sufficient cause exists. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

12. Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach needs to be adopted in the matters of condonation of delay so that the substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. The power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be exercised in a very meaningful manner which will serve the ends of justice.

13. It is true that the fact that the decision on which the impugned judgement is based has been overruled is by itself no ground to condone a long delay. In the facts of this case, it is true that the Special Leave Petition has been filed two years and three days after the date of the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority.

14. In this case, admittedly, the acquired land has been used by DMRC for the metro depot and the metro depot exists on the acquired land as noted in the imp