Allowed

Rajendra Singh v. the Union Bank of India and or

Rajasthan HC12 May 2017CRES/509/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a restoration application filed by an appellant to recall a dismissal order. It condoned a 24-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on a satisfactory explanation and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The restoration application is allowed; the delay is condoned; the appeal is restored to its original number subject to deposit of costs.

Rajendra Singh Vs the Union Bank of India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 509 / 2013

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.555/2007

¶5

Rajendra Singh s/o Shri Swaroop Singh, by caste jat, R/o Madarpur, Tehsil & District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) at present resident of House no. 2-M-7, Housing Board, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), the then Chowkidar, Union Bank of India, Gunsara Branch, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Applicant/Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Union Bank Of India, through the Managing Director, Union Bank of India, Nariman Point, 239, Bank Way, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mumbai-21.

¶9

The Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, 26/28, D-Canaught Place, New Delhi, present office Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place, Baba Sahib Marg, 3^rd floor, Gole Market, New Delhi.

¶10

The Superintendent, Personnel Department, Anchalik Karyalaya, Union Bank of India, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place, Baba Sahib Marg, 3^rd floor, Gole Market, New Delhi.

¶11

Shri L.C. Sharma, Assistant Superintendant, Enquiry Office, union Bank of India, Bapu Nagar (S.D.M.H Premises), Jaipur (Raj.)

¶12

----Non Applicant/Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DC Gupta

¶14

For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶16

Order

¶17

12/05/2017

¶18

This restoration application has been filed to recall the order dated 20^th May, 2014 by which SB Civil Second Appeal No.555/2007 was dismissed in compliance of the per emptory order dated 9^th April, 2014. The restoration application has been filed with a delay of 24 days. An application under Section 5 of the

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRES-509/2013]

¶21

Limitation Act has been filed to condone the said delay. The delay of 24 days has satisfactorily been explained. Therefore, the delay in filing the restoration application is, condoned.

¶22

For the reasons mentioned in the restoration application which is duly supported by the affidavit of the advocate concern, the restoration application is also allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- which shall be deposited within a week with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur.

¶23

Consequently, the second appeal be restored to its original number.

¶24

(PRAKASH GUPTA) J.

¶25

bairwa/6

Rajendra Singh v. the Union Bank of India and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. the Union Bank of India and or

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

Rajesh Kumar Kataria Vs State

Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bajrang Lal Chhipa Vs R S R T C Jaipur and Ors.

Vilmesh Agarwal Vs Naveen Agarwal

Kishan Lal andANR Vs Shishpal andORS

Raj Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.