Facts
The respondents (plaintiffs) filed Title Suit No. 07 of 2016 for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which was decreed in their favor on 20.06.2018
Source reference: p. 2The appellants challenged this in Title Appeal No. 23 of 2018, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 05.07.2023
Source reference: p. 3Instead of immediately filing a Regular Second Appeal (RSA), the appellants filed a Review Petition (Civil Misc. No. 02 of 2023) on 24.08.2023, which was dismissed on 18.12.2025 on the grounds that the grievances were appellate in nature
Source reference: p. 3The appellants subsequently filed the present RSA on 07.03.2026 along with an application (I.A. No. 01/2026) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 885 days
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the period spent pursuing a review petition is automatically excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the appellants provided sufficient cause to condone the 885-day delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay upon showing "sufficient cause"
Source reference: p. 2It interpreted the precedent DSR Steel (Private) Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782, which posits that while time taken for a diligently pursued review may be excluded in "appropriate cases," it is not an absolute rule regardless of the length of delay or the conduct of the party
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court observed that the delay of 885 days was inordinate. While the appellants sought to exclude the time spent on the review petition, the Court noted that the review petition itself was filed beyond the 30-day limitation period (filed 24.08.2023 against a judgment dated 05.07.2023)
Source reference: p. 4Furthermore, even after the review petition was dismissed on 18.12.2025, the appellants waited until 07.03.2026 (over two months) to file the RSA, attributing this further delay to their counsel
Source reference: p. 4The Court reasoned that the principle in DSR Steel does not mandate condonation in every case where a review is sought, especially when the proceedings are not pursued with due diligence
Source reference: p. 3The Court emphasized that successful litigants should not be indefinitely "vexed" by late filings after prevailing in three prior stages (Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and Review)
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01/2026), holding that the explanation offered was unsatisfactory and the delay was inordinate
Consequently, the connected RSA No. 06/2026 was also dismissed as time-barred
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Smt. Mayna Bala Debnath and OrsvsSmt. Pranati Debnath and Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in