IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 33 of 2023 -------- Md. Shamim ... ... Petitioner Versus Md. Ejajul Haque & Ors. … … Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Rita Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate -------- Order No. 08/ Dated: 25th June, 2025 I.A. No. 13780 of 2024:- 1. On request of both the parties heard this revision finally on lengths. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties had filed a Title Suit No. 51 of 2009 which was dismissed after conclusion of trial, thereafter the opposite parties filed a Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2023 before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj which was time barred by 423 days. 3. It is further submitted that vide impugned order dated 01.09.2023 after condoning the delay and without issuing any notice to the opposite party (petitioner herein) this appeal was admitted subject to the payment of a cost of Rs.7000/- to be deposited in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Sahibganj. 4. It is also submitted that the application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and no application has been filed under Rule 3A of Order 41 of C.P.C., therefore, the impugned order is apparently illegal due to non-compliance of Rule 3A of Order 41 of C.P.C. by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order and the same is fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the said impugned order was passed subject to payment of a cost of Rs.7000/- to be deposited in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Sahibganj which has already been deposited and the appeal has been admitted. Therefore, impugned order does not require any interference. 6. From perusal of impugned order itself, it is abundantly clear that the 2 appeal was time barred by 423 days at the time of preferring the same before the Appellate Court. No application for condonation of delay under Rule 3A of Order 41 of C.P.C. has not been filed and no notice was sent to the respondents (petitioner herein) as per Sub-Clause 2 of Rule 3A of order 41 of C.P.C., which is mandatory provision, therefore the impugned order is absolutely illegal and the same is hereby set aside. 7. Learned Appellate Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the point of limitation after issuing notice to the opposite parties in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2023 and after hearing the arguments of the parties. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 13780 of 2024 is disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Arpit