A 16-year delay cannot be condoned without notice and reasoned consideration under Section 5.

The petitioners and private respondents are descendants of Shivaram B. Kamble.

After his death, Dhondiram Shivaram Kamble’s name was entered in the revenue records as manager of the joint family, but in 1998 he caused his children’s names to be entered in the RTCs following an alleged partition, without notice to the other family members.

The affected family members appealed to the Assistant Commissioner and sought condonation of a delay of 16 years, 10 months and 4 days.

The Assistant Commissioner condoned the delay without notice to the respondents, later allowed the appeal and cancelled Mutation Entry No. 1063.

The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the ensuing revision; following an earlier remand by the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner again dismissed it on 9 June 2026.

The petitioners challenged the orders concerning condonation, the appeal and the revision.

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner properly exercised discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in condoning a delay of 16 years, 10 months and 4 days without notice to the respondents.

2. Whether the orders passed in the appeal and revision could stand when the delay-condonation order was procedurally and substantively defective.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act governs applications to admit an appeal after the prescribed limitation period and requires the authority to exercise its discretion judicially on the explanation for delay.

The Court held that condoning an enormous delay through a brief order, without issuing notice to the respondents or adequately considering the application, was improper in the circumstances of this case.

No precedent was cited.

The Assistant Commissioner condoned a delay exceeding 16 years by a two- or three-line order and without notice to the respondents.

The High Court found that this did not demonstrate proper exercise of discretion under Section 5 and concluded that the delay application required reconsideration before the appeal could proceed.

Since the orders allowing the appeal and dismissing the revision followed that defective process, the Court set them aside and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner from the stage of considering the delay-condonation application.

The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the delay application and appeal, with directions to dispose of them within six weeks of the parties’ first appearance.

The parties were directed to appear on 16 October 2026; the petitioners were directed to take steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 9 on record.

Pending disposal, the parties were ordered to maintain the status quo concerning the RTC and nature of the property and were restrained from creating third-party rights.