The High Court dismissed a restoration application seeking to revive a dismissed revision petition. The prior petition was dismissed because the petitioner's explanation for delay was false, and the requisite documents were never filed as ordered.
Application for restoration of the revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR --------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL RESTORATION No. 25 of 2009
A.C.T.O.A/E II-PALI V/S M/S PREM CHAND ANAND ENTERPRIESES
Mr. VK MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner
Date of Order : 9.7.2009
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
ORDER -----
In this matter, the revision stood dismissed consequent upon the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2007 in presence of learned counsel for the Department.
In para-2 of the restoration application it is pleaded as under:-
“That the matter was listed before the Hon'ble court on 7.9.2007 and this Hon'ble Court passed a preemptory order for filing the requisite along with the application for condonation of delay for filing the requisite. This Hon'ble Court was also pleased to pass the order that if the needful is done then office was directed to proceeded further and delay shall be taken as condoned. But if the needful is not done then the revision petition was directed to be dismissed without reference to the Hon'ble Court. Since, the needful was not done in pursuance of the directions of this Hon'ble court dated 7.9.2007. The matter was listed before the learned Deputy Registrar (Judl.), on 29.10.2007 and the case was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Copies of the orders dated 7.9.2007 and 29.10.2007 are submitted herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1 & 2 respectively.”
However, the other restoration applications arising in identical circumstances have already been dismissed by this Court by passing the following order:-
2
“In this matter, the revision petition stood dismissed consequent upon the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2007 in presence of learned counsel for the Department. It is significant to note that under Rule 166 the revision petition was required to be dismissed on that day itself, and it was only on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisites along with application for condonation of delay have been put in, that the delay was condoned and notices were ordered to be issued relying upon the statement of the learned counsel, and it was by way of abundant caution, that it was clarified, that if the requistes are not found to have been put in, as against the unserved respondents, the petition will automatically stand dismissed. From the report of the Registry it transpires that the statement made before the Court is wrong, and therefore, the revision petition has been dismissed as the order sprung into action.
In my view, no ground has been made out to explain as to why such a wrong statement was made in the Court. Thus, I do not find any ground to restore the revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.”
In that view of the matter, for the same reason
this application is also dismissed.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/tarun/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a restoration of a dismissed revision petition is maintainable when the petitioner's earlier explanation for delay was found to be wrong and the petition was dismissed for non-compliance.
A.C.T.O.A
M/S PREM CHAND ANAND ENTERPRIESES
N P GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
