Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar v. Fateh Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2015CMA/4043/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to vague and unspecific averments, thereby leading to the dismissal of the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act dismissed.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Fateh Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: JUDGMENT :

¶4

Dinesh Kumar Vs.

¶5

Fateh Singh & Ors.

¶6

( S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4043/2011)

¶7

Date of order : : 08.01.2015

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶10

Mr. SS Shaktawat, for the appellant. Mr. Dilip Singh Rathore for Mr. TRS Sodha, for the respondents.

¶11

Matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

¶12

The appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.

¶13

The appeal is barred by limitation of 90 days' and therefore, appellant has made endeavor to seek condonation of delay. For condonation of delay, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is laid. On 27.02.2012, notices of the application for condonation of delay were issued but except respondent No. 3, notices were not

¶14

¶15

served on the other respondents. On 19.03.2014 preempatory order was made by the Court for filing Pf and notices for respondents No. 1 & 2 but in compliance thereof requisites were not filed and therefore, the appeal is dismissed qua respondents No. 1 & 2 on 28.07.2014.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the application for condonation of delay and the fact that the instant appeal has already been dismissed against the respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, I am not persuaded to grant any indulgence to the appellant on his prayer for condonation of delay. Moreover, the averments contained in the application seeking condonation of delay are absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific and no reasons are forthcoming for condoning delay of 90 days'.

¶17

In view of above, application for condonation of delay entails rejection and the same is hereby dismissed and as a consequence thereof the appeal is also dismissed.

¶18

(P.K. LOHRA), J.

¶19

Bharti/21

Dinesh Kumar v. Fateh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. Fateh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haji Ibrahimdin Panwar Vs Khursid Hussain and Ors.

Smt. Gulab Kanwar and Ors. Vs Proprietor, M/S Ritu Goods Career and Anr.

C.T.O. Anti Evasion, Jodhpur Vs M/S Jai Matadi Distributors

Gaurav Vs Rajendra Singh and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Tara Kunwar and Ors.

Riico. Ltd. Vs Sosar Bai and Ors.