LIMITATION PETITION HAS NO INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE BEREFT OF APPEAL: ODISHA HIGH COURT
This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Odisha through the division bench of Justice B. Mohanty in the case of Kailash Chandra Panda & others V State of Orissa & others (C.R.P. No. 6 of 2022)
Facts
the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have filed C.S. No. 186 of 2012 valued at Rs. 49,000/- in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Dharamgarh for declaration of their right title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit schedule tank. Further they have prayed for declaration of their right to fish, water for irrigation and improvements over the suit tank. They also prayed for permanent injunction against present opposite parties from interfering with the possession and ownership of the plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.12.2014 the present opposite parties filed R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 making the present petitioners as respondents along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay. The delay condonation petition having been allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017, the said order has been challenged here in this civil revision.
JUDGEMENT
To the contention of Mr.Pradhan that the impugned order under Annexure-5 cannot be construed to have been passed in the appeal, this Court is of the opinion that such a contention cannot be accepted as limitation petition has no independent existence bereft of appeal. It may be noted here that even the petition for condonation of delay was not separately numbered. So order passed therein cannot be segregated from the appellate jurisdiction of the learned District Judge. Even otherwise it cannot be said that order passed in the limitation petition was passed in any original or independent proceeding. For all these reasons the civil revision petition is not maintainable. Further conceding for a moment but not admitting that the impugned order is covered by the phrase ‘other proceedings’ as used in Sub-Section (1) of Section 115 of ‘the Code, then also the present civil revision is not maintainable as it arises in connection with an original suit whose valuation is less than Rs.5/- lakhs. For all these reasons the civil revision is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of civil revision will not be a bar for the petitioners to file appropriate application before appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if they are so advised. For such purposes certified copies enclosed to this petition can be taken back after the same are substituted by authenticated Xerox copies.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NAISARGIKA MISHRA