Rules of limitation should not be used to destroy substantive rights where delay is attributable to counsel.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 08-06-2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding "Batankan" by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bhopal.

The appeal was filed with a delay of approximately two years, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

The Additional Collector rejected the application on 07-08-2025, and a subsequent revision petition before the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed on 04-06-2026.

The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the delay was not properly explained due to a drafting lapse by her previous counsel and sought an opportunity to file a fresh affidavit.

1. Whether the appellate and revisional authorities were justified in dismissing the case solely on the grounds of limitation without deciding the matter on merits.

2. Whether a litigant should be deprived of substantive rights due to the procedural lapses or drafting errors of their counsel.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay if "sufficient cause" is shown.

N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 127: The rules of limitation are not intended to destroy the substantive rights of parties but to ensure that legal remedies are sought within a reasonable time.

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed purely on technical grounds of limitation rather than on merits.

The Court focused on the procedural fairness of the condonation application despite arguments from respondents that the original SDO order was a consent order.

The Court noted the petitioner’s argument that the failure to explain the delay was an error attributable to the counsel’s drafting.

Aligning with the N. Balakrishnan doctrine, the Court reasoned that it is conducive to justice to afford a litigant an opportunity to explain a delay rather than shutting the doors of the court due to a lawyer's lapse, provided the substantive rights of the party are at stake.

The matter was remitted back to the Additional Collector, Bhopal, for fresh consideration with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit supporting the Section 5 application within 15 days.

The Authority is directed to decide the application on its merits within 60 days after hearing the respondents; the petition was disposed of with these directions.