Ex Parte Condonation of Inordinate Delay Without Communication of Hearing Date Is Procedurally Invalid

The petitioner’s father was the recorded owner of land in Village Seoni. Following his death, the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 4) mutated the land in the petitioner’s name via an order dated 09.09.2017

Approximately five years later, Respondents 5 to 7 challenged this mutation before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Revenue). On 07.02.2022, the SDO was occupied with administrative work, and the case was adjourned to 21.02.2022

On the adjourned date, neither the petitioner nor their counsel appeared as the date was not communicated to them, nor was their signature present on the order sheet

Consequently, the SDO proceeded ex parte, condoned the five-year delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without assigning cogent reasons, and admitted the appeal

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash these proceedings

1. Whether the SDO (Revenue) erred in law by proceeding ex parte and condoning an inordinate delay without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing

2. Whether the order dated 21.02.2022 violates principles of natural justice due to lack of communication regarding the adjourned hearing date

The Court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires a party to show "sufficient cause" for delay

The court underscored procedural propriety under Revenue Law/CG Land Revenue Code, implying that a delay of five years cannot be condoned mechanically or without assigning plausible and cogent reasons

The Court observed that while the petitioner's counsel had appeared on earlier dates, the specific date of 21.02.2022 was fixed in the absence of the parties due to the Presiding Officer’s administrative engagement on the previous date

The absence of the counsel’s signature on the order sheet proved the lack of communication

The Court reasoned that the SDO acted arbitrarily by allowing the limitation application without hearing the petitioner on a "crucial issue" that goes to the root of the matter

It held that instead of passing an ex parte order on a stale claim (delayed by five years), the SDO was duty-bound to ensure due communication of the fresh date to the affected party to maintain procedural legality

The matter was remanded to the SDO (Revenue), Marwahi, with a direction to reconsider the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh, after ensuring both parties are afforded a proper opportunity of hearing on the merits of the delay; the petitioner was directed to appear before the SDO on 20th May 2026