Dismissed

Anita and Others v. Uda Lal Mali and Others

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2022CMA/2186/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal award was dismissed as barred by limitation. The court rejected the application for condonation of a 222-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, finding the reason of delayed legal advice insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed; Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

Anita and Others Vs Uda Lal Mali and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2186/2013

¶3

(1) Anita, W/o Ram Singh, aged 32 years,

¶4

(2) Jeevan Kumar, S/o Late Ram Singh, aged 13 years,

¶5

(3) Sonu Kumar, S/o Late Shri Ram Singh, aged 10 years,

¶6

(4.) Monu, S/o Ramsingh, aged 9 years,

¶7

(5) Kesar, W/o Ramgopal, aged 74 years,

¶8

Appellant No.2 to 4 are minor through their mother and natural guardian Anita, W/o Late Shri Ramsingh

¶9

All R/o Bhandpura (Garh Himmat Singh), Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa.

¶10

----Claimants-Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

(1) Udalal Mali, S/o Ramdhan, R/o Madoliya Ka Barda, Hindauli, Tehsil Hindauli, District Bundi (Driver and Power of attorney holder)

¶13

(2) Hemraj Gurjar, S/o Moti Lal, R/o Huwaliya, Post Pagara, Tehsil, Hindauli, District Bundi (Owner)

¶14

(3) Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its regional office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager (Insurer).

¶15

----Non-Claimants-Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) :

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶18

Order

¶19

19/12/2022

¶20

This civil misc. appeal, which is preferred against the award dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dausa in Claim Petition No.723/2009, reported to be barred by 222 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[CMA-2186/2013]

¶23

In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is stated that delay in preferring the appeal occurred on account of delayed legal advice which could be obtained on receipt of the notice of the civil misc. appeal preferred by the Insurance company against the award dated 29.06.2012.

¶24

The explanation seeking condonation of delay is not satisfactory at all. There is nothing on record to show as to what prevented the appellants from taking legal advise well in time.

¶25

In view thereof, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

¶26

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶27

Sudha/01

Anita and Others v. Uda Lal Mali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita and Others v. Uda Lal Mali and Others

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

Renu Kumari Vs Shri Griraj Singh Kushwah

Suman Choudhary W/O Mahesh Kumar Vs Sh. D.B. Gupta

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Santra Devi and Others

Tejpal Singh S/O Bharat Singh Vs Abdul Haq Qureshi S/O Methon Qureshi

Gisa Lal and Ors. Thr Lrs Vs Late Shri Mishri Lal Thr Lrs

Akhil Bharatvarshiya Digamber Jain Bagherwal Sangh Bundi Vs State of Rajasthan through District Collector Bundi