[2025:RJ-JP:41994] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 3/2024 Hanuman Singh S/o Sohan Singh, aged about 38 Years, R/o Ward No.8, Tehsil Churu, Railway Station Tarap, Sirsala, Churu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus Union of India through the General Manager, North West Railway, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 14/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present civil review petition against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('Limitation Act'). 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present review petition is that the petitioner herein filed an application under section 17 (2) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for condonation of 1569 days and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2017 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur while observing therein that the grounds mentioned by the petitioner are not sufficient or reasonable to condone such an inordinate delay in filing the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.07.2017, an appeal, bearing No. SBCMA No. 5115/2017 was preferred before this Court, on the ground that the petitioner herein did not have the requisite knowledge of procedural law, which was [2025:RJ-JP:41994] (2 of 3) [CRW-3/2024] dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 25.01.2019, upholding the legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat i.e. ignorance of law is no excuse. 3. A bare perusal of the record of the case shows that the original claim petition was filed with an inordinate delay of 1569 days and the present review petition has been filed with an inordinate delay of 1647 days, and no 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been made out explaining such an inordinate delay in filing the present civil review petition. On the contrary, the petitioner herein has rather taken a plea which finds no standing in law, stating that he was not aware of the provisions of law relating to the time limitation in filing a review petition prescribed by the Limitation Act. 4. The question that arises is whether delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act merely on the plea of ignorance of the law. Such a plea cannot have a good basis to condone breach of the law of limitation. The presumption under the principle ignorantia juris non excusat is irrebuttable; mere inevitable ignorance or error will not serve as a sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. Thus, it is trite law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Consequently, the justification given for the filing of the review petition with inordinate delay is unsustainable and lacks merit. 6. Since the grounds mentioned by the petitioner are not sufficient, reasonable or bona fide to condone such an inordinate delay. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:41994] (3 of 3) [CRW-3/2024] 7. Consequently, review petition and pending application (IA Nos.1/2023 & 1/2024) shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-98