'Limitation Is Statue Of Peace & Repose': Rajasthan High Court Quashes Order Allowing Time Barred Appeal Against 44-Yr-Old Decree

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ("RAA") and the Board of Revenue, in which a time barred appeal, filed after 44 years of decree, was allowed without any application for condonation of delay or any reasons justifying such delay.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that law of limitation was founded on public policy which required that there should be an end to litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the ligation was made immortal while the litigating parties i.e. the humans were mortals.

"The courts have always treated the statutes of limitation and prescription as statutes of peace and repose. They envisage that a right not exercised or the remedy not availed for a long time ceases to exist. This is one way of putting an end to a litigation by barring the remedy rather than the right with the passage of time," it said.

In the instant case, the decree was passed by the SDO on 29.07.1964. It was undisputed that after a delay of 44 years a time-barred appeal was preferred by the respondent before the RAA without submitting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

Without assigning any reason for filing a delayed appeal, straightaway the appeal was preferred before the RAA and the same has been allowed by the RAA vide judgment dated 04.11.2010, the Court noted.

It observed that whenever a time barred appeal is preferred, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is required to be filed along with such time barred appeal. If no separate application is submitted, then the reasons of delay are required to be discussed in the memo of appeal.

It said that it is settled that unless and until, the delay in filing an appeal is condoned, the appeal cannot be decided on its merits.

"It appears that both the RAA and the Board has overlooked this material aspect of the matter and the 44 years time barred appeal has been allowed without condonation of delay in filing the appeal. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned judgment about entertaining such belated time barred appeal," the court said. 

The Court opined that even though it was settled that a liberal approach had to be adopted in condonation of delay, simultaneously it was also true that an objection regarding limitation was not merely a technical objection but a material one determining the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

Petitioners had filed a suit for correction of entries in the revenue record which was decreed in their favour in 1964. After 44 years, an appeal was submitted by the respondent without any application for condonation of delay which was allowed by the RAA and upheld by the Board. Hence, the petition was filed before the Court.

The Court made a reference to Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provided that whenever any suit, appeal or application was preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, it had to be rejected unless delay was condoned in accordance with law, even if the limitation was not taken as a defence by any of the authority.

In the background of this provision, the Court held it was the duty of the court not to proceed with the appeal if it was made beyond the period of limitation prescribed.

“…before proceeding with the case without following the first step as mentioned in Order 41 Rule 3A of the CPC, an appellate court cannot rather should not proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits keeping in view the mandatory provision of Section 3 of the Limitation Act…”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, with liberty being granted to the respondent to filed application under the Limitation Act.

Title: Sabuddin & Ors. v Giriraj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 315

Click Here To Read/Download Order