The Revision Petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court challenged the order, dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal on grounds of limitation, stating that the petitioner’s unsubstantiated claim that his lawyer failed to inform him about the impugned order did not constitute a valid justification for the prolonged delay in filing the appeal. The Revision Petition before the High Court was filed by the petitioner-husband, challenging the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dismissing the appeal due to the 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.”
Arguments
The Petitioner contended that he was employed as a laborer outside the State and was unaware of the order due to his lawyer’s failure to inform him. Upon learning about the order, he promptly filed an appeal against the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, he argued that the delay in filing the appeal was entirely unintentional and made in good faith.
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.”
Upon reviewing the case details, the Bench observed that the trial court had issued the maintenance order on July 18, 2023, while the petitioner filed an appeal against the order, 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.
The Bench held that the delay could not be excused solely on the grounds that the applicant lacked knowledge of the lower court’s decision. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed it.