Delay condoned where a non-party alleges lack of notice and later knowledge of revenue changes.

The petitioner claimed co-ownership of the land under registered sale deeds and alleged that a partition order was passed in 2015 without impleading or notifying the concerned co-owners. Revenue records were amended on the basis of that order in 2025.

After learning of the changes, the petitioner filed an appeal with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay. The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) dismissed both the application and the appeal on 26 December 2025. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whether the SDO properly considered the petitioner’s explanation for delay, including the alleged lack of notice and the petitioner’s asserted date of knowledge

Whether the delay should be condoned and the appeal restored for determination on its merits

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for condonation of delay where sufficient cause is established; the court considered whether the petitioner’s pleaded circumstances—including alleged non-impleadment, absence of notice, and discovery of the altered revenue entries in 2025—required consideration in assessing sufficient cause

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Court granted relief by setting aside the SDO’s order and remanding the appeal

No precedent is cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner’s assertions that he was not a party to the partition proceedings and learned of the revenue changes only in 2025 required due consideration when assessing the delay

It concluded that the petitioner should have an opportunity to have the challenge examined on its merits and therefore condoned the delay.

The Court did not decide the underlying questions of title, partition, or the correctness of the revenue entries, leaving them open for the competent authority

It remanded the matter to the SDO to restore the appeal and decide it afresh on the merits, after giving the petitioner, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and any other affected parties an opportunity to be heard, and after passing a reasoned order

No opinion was expressed on the merits, and there was no order as to costs