Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand Banshval

Rajasthan HC25 Oct 2021SAW/390/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal by the State challenging a Single Judge's refusal to review a High Court order. The Single Judge dismissed the review prayer, finding the controversy covered by precedent. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were disposed of by dismissal.

State of Rajasthan Vs Lal Chand Banshval — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 390/2019

¶3

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶4

The Chief Engineer (Rural), Department Of Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶5

Superintending Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Circle Churu.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Lal Chand Banshval S/o Mohan Lal, Prakash Pathshala Ward No. 1, Regar Basti Ratangarh District Churu.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG Mr. Deepak Chandak, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Bissa

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

25/10/2021

¶13

This Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State challenging the order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil Review Petition No.120/2014, whereby the prayer of State to review the order dated 27.09.13 passed in SBCWP No.1802/11 has been refused.

¶14

As per the office report, there is delay of 469 days in filing this Special Appeal.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[SAW-390/2019]

¶17

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned AAG has submitted that there was no intention on the part of the State to file this Special Appeal with delay of 469 days and the same is bonafide.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material on record, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order while observing that the order passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1802/2011 on 27.09.13 was passed on the basis of categorical statement made by learned counsels for the parties before the Court that the controversy involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered in “Lal Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” (SB Civil Writ Petition No.4838/96).

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any case for interference in this Special Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶20

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also disposed of.

¶21

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶22

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶23

1-Arun/-

State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand Banshval

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Lal Chand Banshval

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Revenue and Ors. Vs Ram Lal

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Nathu Singh Rao

State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Lal

State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Kumar

Shyam Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Kanhaiya Lal Vishnoi