Condonation of delay without assigning reasons or hearing the opposing party is legally unsustainable.

The petitioners, owners of land at Survey No. 1659 in Agar Malwa, obtained a partition order from the Tehsildar under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) on 04.02.2022.

After a delay of twenty-three months, Respondent No. 4 challenged this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under Section 44(2) of the MPLRC, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

On 07.11.2024, the SDO condoned the delay without issuing notice to the petitioners or providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The petitioners’ subsequent revision petition against this order was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 22.01.2025 via a "non-speaking" order.

Following further procedural orders by the SDO, a second revision was dismissed on 18.06.2025.

The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the SDO’s order condoning a twenty-three-month delay without notice or hearing to the affected parties violated the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the revisional orders passed by the Additional Collector were legally sustainable given the lack of specific reasoning for affirming the condonation of delay.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), which necessitates notice to the opposing party before prejudicial orders are passed.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires "sufficient cause" to be shown for delay condonation, and established that such applications cannot be allowed mechanically.

necessity of "Speaking Orders," holding that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities must assign specific reasons for their conclusions to ensure legal sustainability.

The High Court observed that the SDO’s initial order dated 07.11.2024 was procedurally flawed as it condoned a significant delay of twenty-three months without affording the petitioners an opportunity to object.

Upon reviewing the Additional Collector’s revisional order dated 22.01.2025, the court found it "not sustainable in the eyes of law" because it failed to assign any substantive reasons for allowing the limitation application.

The court rejected the lower authority’s logic that the delay could be condoned simply because "no harm is being caused to any of the parties," noting that such a rationale does not satisfy the legal requirement for a reasoned adjudication on the merits of a Section 5 application.

Consequently, the lack of notice and the perfunctory nature of the impugned orders constituted a gross illegality.

The court remanded the matter, directing the SDO to decide the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh by passing a "speaking and reasoned order" after providing both parties a proper opportunity to be heard.

The SDO was ordered to dispose of the application within sixty days of the filing of the High Court's order.