Allowed

Sushil Kumar v. Special District Judge - I (Pong Dam Outees Cases)

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2021WRES/22/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioners' application for condonation of delay and restored DBSAW No.544/2014 to its original number in the interest of justice, finding a plausible explanation for the delay.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed; the restoration application is allowed, and the special appeal is restored to its original number.

Sushil Kumar Vs Special District Judge - I… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Restoration No. 22/2019

¶3

¶4

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.544/2014

¶5

Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Jagatram @ Jagtu, aged about 47 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident of Samked, Post office Joka-Ratayal, Tehsil Jvali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶6

Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Jagatram @ Jagtu, aged about 30 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident of Samked, Post office Joka-Ratayal, Tehsil Jvali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Special District Judge-I (Pong Dam Outees Cases), Sri Ganganagar.

¶10

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

¶11

The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶12

The Commissioner Rehabilitation, Bikaner (Raj.) 5. Deputy Commissioner Resettlement And Rehabilitation, Beas Project, Raja Ka Talab, District Kagara (H.p.)

¶13

Rami Devi W/o Bhoopram Bishnoi, Resident of Chak 7 B.G.D. Tehsil Vijaynagar, District Sri-Ganganagar.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶17

Order

¶18

28/01/2021

¶19

This restoration application has been filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of DBSAW No.544/2014, which stands

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[WRES-22/2019]

¶22

dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 02.03.2017 for non-prosecution.

¶23

The restoration application is barred by limitation for 111 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶24

Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondents despite service.

¶25

Having gone through the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the petitioners were prevented filing the restoration application for sufficient cause, inasmuch as the petitioners have given plausible and acceptable explanation for the delay.

¶26

Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.

¶27

In the interest of justice, the restoration application is allowed. The special appeal is restored to its original number.

¶28

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶29

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶30

6-DJ/-

Sushil Kumar v. Special District Judge - I (Pong Dam Outees Cases)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. Special District Judge - I (Pong Dam Outees Cases)

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

Rajendra Dukiya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Design Plus Architect and Structural Consultant Vs the Jodhpur Development Authority

Nagar Parishad Hanumangarh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs State Bank of India

State of Rajasthan Vs Dewa Ram Godara

Manohar Singh Vs DY.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2,JODHPUR