Dismissed

State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Laxman Singh

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2018SAW/1307/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an intra-court appeal as barred by limitation. The court rejected the appellants' explanation for a 172-day delay and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, noting the matter had remained pending for ten years while the challenged order had already been complied with.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1307/2011

¶4

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue (Colonisation), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶5

The Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Colonisation) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶6

The Tehsildar (Colonisation), I.G.N.P., Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner.

¶7

The Accounts Officer, Colonisation Department, Bikaner. ----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Laxman Singh S/o Shri Shaitan Singh, aged 51 years, By caste Rajpurohit, R/o Opp. Government Press, Majisa Ka Bas, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

19/09/2018

¶15

This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01^st May 2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.6378/2006, whereby writ petition preferred by respondent/writ-petitioner seeking reimbursement of medical

¶16

[SAW-1307/2011]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

expenses relating to kidney transplantation has been allowed in following terms: -

¶19

“The respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses to the petitioner which were incurred in operation of kidney transplantation held at Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad within a period of three months from today. Further, it is directed that the amount already paid under the order of this Court dated 8.4.2008 shall be adjusted at the time of making final payment to the petitioner. It is also made clear that respondents are free to make verification of the medical bills and documents filed by the petitioner.”

¶20

The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 172 days.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/writpetitioner submits that judgment under appeal already stands complied with by the appellants/non-petitioners, inasmuch as after due verification, the medical bills submitted by the writpetitioner have already been reimbursed.

¶22

It is noticed that the only reason for filing the appeal with inordinate delay furnished by the appellants is that on account of official procedure, the delay has been caused and, therefore, a lenient view needs to be taken.

¶23

In our considered opinion, the explanation furnished by the appellants for delay in filing the appeal is not plausible and acceptable.

¶24

That apart, it is pertinent to note that the matter remained pending before this Court in the category of defect for last ten

¶25

[SAW-1307/2011]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

years, and in the meantime, the judgment under appeal has already been complied with.

¶28

In this view of the matter, the application under Section 5 of

¶29

the Limitation Act is dismissed.

¶30

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶33

DJ/- 1

State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Laxman Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Laxman Singh

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Budhmal

C.I.T. I, Jodhpur Vs M/S Kansara Bearing Ltd.

C.I.T. I, Jodhpur Vs Kansara Bearing Ltd.

Union of India Vs Shekhawati Art Exports and Anr.

Union of India Vs M/S Sunita Hydrocolloids Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Gumanmal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.