Rules Of Limitation Not Meant To Destroy Rights Of Parties, Fixes Lifespan For Legal Remedy: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties and merely fixes a lifespan for legal remedy.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order passed by the Board of Revenue by which the Revision Petition submitted by the Respondents under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was allowed.

The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, "...The primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and advance the substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redressed of the legal injury so suffered."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate R.K. Agarwal, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Manoj Kumar Bharadwaj.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Plaintiff-Respondents filed a Revenue Suit against the Petitioners-Defendants before the Assistant Collector, Jaipur City-II, wherein, the Petitioners were appearing, but on account of illness of the Defendant No.2, they could not appear before the Court on the fateful day and hence, ex-parte order was passed and decree was drawn.

He submitted that the Petitioners were not aware about passing of the ex-parte order and decree and immediately after getting knowledge of the same, an Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was submitted for setting aside of the ex-parte order and decree.

The Counsel submitted that the reasons for delay were explained in the Application itself, but no Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted with the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. He submitted that when the objection was taken in this regard, an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed and considering the averments, the Application filed by the Petitioner was allowed and the ex-parte order and decree were quashed and set-aside by the Assistant Collector.

The Counsel argued that the Board has quashed and set-aside the order on a technical count that the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not submitted along with Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, instead it was submitted subsequently. He submitted that there was no need to file separate Application seeking condonation of delay as the reasons were well explained in the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC itself. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in State of M.P. and Another vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, 2000 and Bhagmal and Others vs. Kunwar Lal and Ors., 2010.

Reasoning By Court 

The Court opined that the reasons of delay were well explained in the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and thereafter, the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also submitted for condonation of delay and hence, the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was not defective.

"....The deficiency pointed out by the respondents was cured by the petitioner, immediately after filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act......The delay was hardly of six days and the same was explained by the petitioners which was accepted and delay was condoned by the Assistant Collector and ex-parte order and decree were set-aside", the Court observed.

It emphasized that it is the settled proposition of law that the Superior Court should not disturb such finding, unless the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse.

The Court was of the considered view that there was no such great delay in filing the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the same was filed within a period of one month and six days after passing of the ex-parte decree.

"The reasons explained by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector appears to be satisfactory and the Assistant Collector was right in allowing the application filed by the petitioner and setting aside the ex-parte order and decree, which has unnecessarily been quashed by the Revisional Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction contained under Section 230 of the Act of 1955", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Arjun Lal @ Prahlad v. Rameshwar Prasad (2025:RJ-JP:19050)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate R.K. Agarwal, Advocate Mamoon Khalid 

Respondent- Advocate Manoj Kumar Bharadwaj, Advocate Prahlad Sharma, Advocate Ram Prasad Sharma

Click here to read/ download Order