Rajendra Kumar & Anr. v. Lokmani Joshi & Ors.

respondent-defendants. This application was rejected by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Haldwani, Nainital, vide order dated 25.07.2016. Simultaneously, the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was decreed by judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016. Instead of filing an appeal against the said judgment and decree, respondent nos.1 to 9 filed a review application—Misc. Case No. 240 of 2016—which was allowed vide order 1 dated 06.02.2018.

The order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Haldwani, Nainital, was challenged by the father of the petitioners/plaintiffs (Thep Ram) in Revenue Revision No. 57/17-18-07/2018-

2019. The said revision was allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, judgment and order dated 20.06.2019. This judgment and order was challenged by respondent nos.1 to 9 before the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.41 of 2018-19.

The said revision preferred by respondent- defendant nos.1 to 9 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023. This order was further challenged by respondent nos.1 to 12 by filing a writ petition before this Court bearing WPMS No. 3020 of 2023, Lokmani Joshi vs. Thep Ram and Others, which too was dismissed by reason of the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023. A modification application bearing Modification No. 2 of 2023 was subsequently filed, which was rejected by this Court vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2024. Thereafter, a review petition bearing MCC No. 3 of 2024 was filed, which was also rejected vide order dated 21.05.2025.

In the meantime, respondent nos.1 to 12 filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated

25.07.2016 before the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, which was registered as First Appeal No.104 of 2022-23 along with a delay condonation application seeking condonation of a delay of almost seven years. The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 09.01.2025. 2

The order dated 09.01.2025, whereby the delay of almost seven years was condoned by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, without assigning any reasons, was challenged by the petitioners by filing Revenue Revision No. 34 of 2025, Rajendra Kumar and Another vs. Lokmani Joshi and Others, before the Board of Revenue. The said revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 22.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the orders

09.01.2025

22.07.2025, petitioners/plaintiffs have approached this Court.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, and the Board of Revenue have condoned the delay without assigning any reasons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs drew the attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, substantiate the argument that no reasons were recorded for condonation of delay.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 12 submitted that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, ought to be extended to respondent nos.1 to 12 as they had been pursuing the matter before different courts during the relevant period of seven years. Accordingly, the delay condonation application was rightly allowed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned judgments and orders, this Court is of the view that the orders suffer from no 3 legal infirmity. The dispute between the parties is to be decided on its merits. Further, the reasoning recorded by the learned Commissioner, as affirmed by the Board of Revenue, indicates that the respondents were actively pursuing remedies before various forums during the said period. Thus, they were rightly granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the delay was justifiably condoned.

This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is primarily concerned with procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error. In the present case, no such material irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed either by the Board of Revenue or the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage.