Dismissed

Mahendra Sharma v. Rajendra and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Oct 2018CRES/63/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects a petition for restoration of a Civil Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to inordinate delay of 489 days. The High Court held that the reasons for delay were not sufficient and the applicant failed to show sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the restoration application were rejected.

Mahendra Sharma Vs Rajendra and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Restoration No. 63/2018

¶3

Mahendra Sharma S/o Late Satya Narain, By Caste Brahaman, Resident Of Village-Naya Bas, Gram Panchayat-Sakantal, TehsilRajgarh, District-Churu Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Rajendra S/o Late Mahadev, By Caste Brahaman, Resident Of Village-Naya Bas, Gram Panchayat-Sakantal, Tehsil-Rajgarh, District-Churu Rajasthan.

¶7

Shri Krishna S/o Late Jagdish, By Caste Brahaman, Resident Of Village-Naya Bas, Gram Panchayat-Sakantal, Tehsil-Rajgarh, District-Churu Rajasthan.

¶8

Shri Vijendra S/o Late Jagdish, By Caste Brahaman, Resident Of Village-Naya Bas, Gram Panchayat-Sakantal, Tehsil-Rajgarh, District-Churu Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶12

Order

¶13

24/10/2018

¶14

Petitioner has preferred this petition for restoration of accompanying Civil Revision Petition No.60/2014, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. As the restoration application is preferred after inordinate delay of 489 days, on behalf of the petitioner an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as restoration application.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRES-63/2018]

¶18

The accompanying petition was preferred by petitioner in March, 2014 after delay of 163 days. When the revision petition came up before the Court on 03.04.2014, notices under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were issued, however, for almost two and half years, no endeavor was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to file PF & notices. In view thereof, the revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶19

After perusing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am at loss to say that the reasons spelt out for condonation of delay are not inspiring confidence. True it is that the word “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be construed liberally but then delay cannot be condoned for mere askance in want of plausible reasons. At the threshold, there was a total callousness in not filing PF & notices for more than two and half years and now without furnishing sufficient cause for delay of 489 days, this restoration application is preferred. Therefore, I am not persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

Consequently, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also entails rejection of restoration application.

¶21

Twinkle Singh/

Mahendra Sharma v. Rajendra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Sharma v. Rajendra 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

Yadvindra Singh @ Yada Vs State of Rajasthan

Azad Mohd. and Anr. Vs Bhaiya Khan

S.B.B.J Th. Branch Manager Vs Babu Lal and Ors.

Kan Singh Tak Vs Shanker Lal Tak

Pukhraj Soni Vs Smt. Nisha Chitlangiya

Krishnanand @ Kishananand Vs Shri Mhamandelshwar Swami Dayanand