The Rajasthan High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and held that the petitioner’s bald claim that his lawyer did not inform him about the impugned order was not a reasonable justification for the excessive delay in filing the appeal.

The Revision Petition before the High Court was filed by the petitioner-husband, challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.

The Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg stated, “It is noteworthy that no justification for the petitioner’s failure to ask the status of his case from the counsel is provided. Hence, the applicant’s bald claims that his lawyer did not inform him about the order, cannot be taken seriously as a reasonable justification for the excessive delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, this Court does not fine any error in the impugned appellate order. The appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal on limitation.”

Advocate G.R. Bhari represented the Petitioner.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioner that he worked as a labourer outside the State and he was not informed about the order by his lawyer. As soon as the Petitioner came to know about the order, he filed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court. Thus, the delay caused in filing the appeal was purely bonafide.

Reasoning

Referring to section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Bench said, “In accordance with widely accepted principles, Section 5 grants the courts discretion over jurisdiction. The term ”sufficient cause” is to be interpreted liberally to promote substantial justice in cases where the appellant cannot be held accountable for any negligence, inaction, or lack of bonafides.”

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the order of maintenance was passed by the trial court on July 18, 2023, and the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of maintenance along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the year 2025. “Thus, the appeal was barred by two and half years”, the Bench said.

“The learned appellate court, while dismissing the appeal,l has observed that the petitioner has given the reason for delay that his lawyer did not inform about the order dated 18.07.2023, which seems to be an excuse for filing an appeal to save himself from execution proceedings. Thus, the petitioner has failed to give any legitimate explanation for the delay caused in the filing of the appeal”, it further added.

As per the Bench, it was not appropriate to excuse the delay only because the applicant did not have due knowledge of the decision passed by the court below. Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Saurendra v. Bhugani & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:11808)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate G.R. Bhari

Click here to read/download Order


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Manoj Kumar Garg

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.