Rule Of Limitation Not Meant To Destroy Rights Of Parties, Merely Fixes Lifespan On Legal Remedy: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the order of the Board of Revenue that rejected the application by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, on the ground that the original application was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, but was submitted subsequently.
While restoring the order of the Assistant Collector that had allowed the application, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the primary function of the Court was to adjudicate the dispute, and that rules of limitation were not meant to destroy people's rights.
"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 court said.
A revenue suit was filed against the petitioners during which, on account of his mother's illness, he could not appear. Resultantly an ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioners.
For setting aside the ex parte order, an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC was filed by the petitioners, after a delay of 6 days from the expiry of the limitation period. This application explained the reasons for the delay. Irrespective, subsequently, an application under Section 5, Limitation Act was also filed seeking condonation of the delay.
These applications were accepted by the Assistant Collector who set aside the ex-parte decree filed against the petitioner. This order was challenged by the respondents before the Board which restored the ex-parte decree on technical grounds that the original application under CPC was not accompanied with the application under the Limitation Act.
It was the case of the petitioner that since the reasons for the delay were well explained in the application filed under CPC, there was no need to file a separate application seeking condonation of delay.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the reasons for the delay were well-explained in the application filed under CPC, and thereafter the deficiency pointed out by the respondents was also cured by filing the application under Limitation Act, immediately.
In this light, while making the above-mentioned observations, the Court further stated that it was settled proposition of law that the superior court should not disturb finding, unless the trial court exercised its discretion on wholly untenable grounds.
It was observed that the rules of limitation were meant to prevent any dilatory tactics by the parties, and not to destroy their rights.
In this background, the Court held that the Assistant Collector was right in allowing the application which was unnecessarily quashed by the Board.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, restoring the order of the Assistant Collector.
Title: Arjun Lal & Ors. v Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 340