Sect 115 CPC | Limitation Runs From the Date of the Review Order, Not the Original Order: Meghalaya High Court

"What is apparent is that the only order sought to be assailed by the petitioner is that of 09.12.2024... The validity or legality of the said order dated 12.07.2019 may have to be looked into when the main revision petition is heard, but not at this stage" —  In a crucial ruling Meghalaya High Court addressed a frequently contested procedural issue: when the limitation period begins for filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), where the impugned order arises from a review of an earlier decision. The judgment makes it abundantly clear that the clock for limitation in such cases starts from the date of the review order, not the original one.

The case involved a delay of 18 days in filing a civil revision petition by Shri Jesterwell Kharshandi, who was aggrieved by an order passed on 09.12.2024 by the Special Judicial Officer, East Khasi Hills, rejecting his review plea against a 2019 order that denied substitution upon the death of a party in a land acquisition matter.

The respondents strongly objected to the application, arguing that the real delay was over 5 years, calculated from the original order of 12.07.2019, thereby questioning the maintainability of the condonation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the High Court rejected this approach and held that “delay must be computed from the order actually under challenge”, i.e., the review order.

"Court Must Not Start With Merits While Considering Delay": Application of H. Guruswamy Principle

The petitioner sought condonation of an 18-day delay in filing his revision petition, explaining that the delay was due to bereavement following the death of his elder brother on 01.03.2025, and that certified copies of the impugned order were delayed due to winter court holidays.

The Court held that this explanation constituted "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah (Deceased by LRs), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, specifically quoting:

“While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation.”

Justice Diengdoh observed that this principle applied squarely:

“Though the respondents have not specifically made any objection to the delay of 18 days, however, exception has been taken to the fact that the petitioner has come before this Court... when in fact, the delay of 5 years 9 months or so has occurred... This Court has failed to understand the logic behind the contention.”

The Court clarified that while the validity of the earlier 2019 order may eventually be scrutinized when the revision is heard, it does not affect the computation of limitation for the current petition, which is directed only against the 09.12.2024 order.

Respondents’ Objection Over “Five-Year Delay” Dismissed As Legally Misconceived

Respondent No. 2, through counsel Ms. M. Dev, argued that the petitioner had essentially challenged two orders — both the original order of 12.07.2019 and the review order of 09.12.2024 — and had suppressed the actual period of delay.

The Court found no merit in this objection, categorically holding that:

“The only order sought to be assailed by the petitioner is that of 09.12.2024. The validity or legality of the said order dated 12.07.2019 may have to be looked into when the main revision petition is heard, but not at this stage.”

Similarly, the Court rejected the contention that the petition should be dismissed due to non-submission of a death certificate to substantiate the bereavement claim. It noted that the respondents had not seriously opposed the 18-day delay, and that the cause shown was reasonable and believable.

Condonation Granted and Revision Petition Restored for Admission

Having found sufficient justification for the short delay and rejecting the exaggerated computation of limitation by the respondents, the Court allowed the application:

“Sufficient cause has been shown to allow condonation of the said delay of 18 days in filing the related revision petition.”

The Court directed that: “The delay of 18 days is condoned and the revision petition is directed to be brought on board. Registry to register the same and to list the matter for admission after one week from the date of passing of this order.”

Limitation Period in Revision Arising from Review Must Be Computed from Review Order, Not Original Order

This ruling by the Meghalaya High Court reinforces two important principles of procedural law:

1. When a review petition is rejected, the limitation for a revision petition under Section 115 CPC must be computed from the date of the review order, not the original order being reviewed.

2. Courts must focus on bona fides and cause shown in delay condonation applications, and not prejudge the merits of the underlying case at that stage.

The Court’s reliance on recent Supreme Court authority in H. Guruswamy lends this decision additional weight and provides clear guidance for litigants and lower courts alike on how Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be applied in revision matters linked to review proceedings.

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025