Delay in restoration applications must be considered under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioner, a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the competent authority, had filed an application under Section 10(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (“the 1962 Act”).

The application remained pending for approximately two years and was dismissed for want of prosecution on 6 September 2025 due to the absence of the petitioner’s advocate.

The petitioner thereafter filed a restoration application seeking recall of the dismissal order, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, explaining a delay of 37 days.

The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa, rejected the delay-condonation application on 17 March 2026.

1. Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application was required to be considered under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the applicable procedure governing restoration applications, rather than by examining whether the 1962 Act independently provides for condonation of delay?

2. Whether the petitioner’s restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 6 September 2025, which dismissed the Section 10 application for want of prosecution, ought to be allowed?

3. Whether the original application under Section 10(2) of the 1962 Act should be restored for adjudication on merits?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown, to the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

It further held that a restoration application is to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the principles governing recall or restoration of proceedings dismissed for default.

The Court also noted that Section 10(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 does not prescribe a period of limitation for an application by a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the competent authority.

The High Court held that the lower court had addressed the wrong legal question.

The proceeding before it was not an application under Section 10 of the 1962 Act filed beyond a statutory period, but an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing a restoration application.

Consequently, the lower court should have examined the application on its merits under Section 5 and applied the procedure governing restoration applications under the CPC.

Its focus on whether the 1962 Act contained an express power to condone delay was therefore misplaced, particularly because the delay-condonation application accompanied the restoration application and was not the original Section 10 application.

Since the underlying Section 10 application had been dismissed for default due to the advocate’s absence, and the relevant statutory and procedural provisions had not been considered, the High Court found the rejection order legally unsustainable.

It allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoned the 37-day delay, and allowed the restoration application seeking recall of the dismissal order dated 6 September 2025.

The original application under Section 10 of the 1962 Act, CMA DC No. 117 of 2023, was restored to its original number, with a direction to the concerned court to decide it on merits and strictly in accordance with law.