Court Emphasizes Necessity of Condoning Delay Before Entertaining Appeals; Interim Orders Without Such Condonation Are Unsustainable
In a significant judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) under Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified the procedural mandate that appellate authorities cannot pass interim stay orders in time-barred appeals without first condoning the delay in filing such appeals. The case, Manni Devi v. Bhuli Devi and Others, arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction initially filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) in 2018.
The petitioner, Manni Devi, challenged an interim stay order dated June 10, 2026, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) which stayed the effect of an order restoring the suit to its original number. The controversy centered on the fact that the respondent filed a delayed appeal-over three years after the restoration order-along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the RAA passed the interim stay without first deciding on whether to condone the delay, leading to the petitioner's challenge before the Rajasthan High Court.
The Court observed that limitation is not a mere technicality but goes to the very jurisdiction of the appellate authority. Unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appeal is not validly instituted and the appellate authority lacks the jurisdiction to entertain or pass interim orders on it. The Court relied on authoritative precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (2024), which mandates that delay condonation applications must be decided before addressing the merits of an appeal.
Further, the Court reiterated that interim stay orders in time-barred appeals are only justified in exceptional circumstances where the order in question has serious consequences. No such exceptional circumstances were found in this case. The RAA's impugned interim stay order was passed without any mention of special grounds or hearing the opposite party, rendering it legally unsustainable.
Consequently, the High Court quashed both the interim stay order dated June 10, 2026, and the subsequent order of the Board of Revenue dated August 4, 2026, which had rejected the petitioner's revision petition against the interim stay. The Court directed the RAA to hear the delay condonation application afresh, decide it expeditiously on merits, and thereafter proceed with the appeal, if delay is condoned.
This ruling reinforces the principle that appellate courts must strictly adhere to limitation laws and procedural safeguards to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings. It also serves as a caution against premature interim relief in appeals that are not properly instituted.
Bottom Line:
Appellate authority cannot pass an interim stay order in a time-barred appeal without first condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Statutory provision(s):
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5
Manni Devi v. Bhuli Devi, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972629
