The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed this delayed intra-court appeal as time-barred, rejecting the appellant's claim that the missing writ appeal was due to the lawyer's negligence. The court found the delay unexplained and the supporting affidavits fraudulent and dishonest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 239/2020
Smt. Anop Kanwar, (Deceased) Widow Of Late Shri Amar Singh, Former Jagiardar, Village Manpura Machedi, Tehsil Amer, Districtjaipur, Through His Power Of Attorney Holder And Now Will Holder Shri Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Suchha Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. 100, Laxmi Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
| ----Respondents | |
|---|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : Dr. RDSS Kharlia Ms. Kinjal Purohit |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
05/04/2022
The instant intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant for assailing the order dated 08.09.2009 whereby writ petition No.6918/2003 (Smt. Anop Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Single Bench of this Court. The appeal is delayed by 3770 days. The appeal has been filed by a person named Rajveer Singh claiming to be the power of attorney-holder and will-holder of Smt. Anop Kanwar (since deceased). Along with the appeal, an application under
(2 of 4)
[SAW-239/2020]
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted wherein it has been pleaded that the appellant was under a bonafide impression that his counsel representing the connected matter being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.857/2011 (Bal Singh vs State of Rajasthan) had filed an appeal on behalf of Smt. Anop Kanwar as well because the counsel had been instructed to file appeal in both the cases. The appellant claims that he was under a bonafide impression that the appeal had been filed and the counsel also kept on informing him regarding presentation of the appeal in the case of Smt. Anop Kanwar as well. However, when D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.857/2011 was allowed by judgment dated 22.01.2020, he approached his counsel engaged to file the appeal and requested him to get the appeal of Smt. Anop Kanwar decided on the same lines as both cases involved identical issues. However, the applicant was surprised to find that no appeal had ever been filed in the case of Smt. Anop Kanwar. The appellant claims to have filed a complaint against the lawyer in the Bar Council and pleading genuine ignorance regarding non-filing of the appeal by the lawyer, he has approached this Court by way of this appeal supported by the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Learned AAG Shri Beniwal has filed reply to the application wherein, specific assertion is made that the cause title of the appeal reveals that it has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner Smt. Anop Kanwar who is no longer alive. The affidavits have been sworn by Shri Rajveer Singh who claims to be the power of attorney-holder and the will-holder of Smt. Anop Kanwar. However, neither any such will nor any such power of attorney has
(3 of 4)
[SAW-239/2020]
been filed along with the appeal. It is further stated that the affidavit in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been sworn as if Smt. Anop Kanwar was alive. Photocopy will dated 18.08.2000 has been placed on record. However, the respondents have questioned veracity of the said will.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.
Shri RDSS Kharlia, counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that fee had been paid to the counsel concerned for filing appeals in the matters of Balsingh and Smt. Anop Kanwar through a bank transfer. The appellant’s power of attorney-holder Shri Rajveer Singh has filed a complaint against the lawyer who misled the appellant and did not file the appeal on behalf of Smt. Anop Kanwar despite fee having been paid. However, a perusal of the additional affidavit dated 12.11.2021 reveals that Shri Rajveer Singh filed a complaint against the counsel concerned in the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur wherein, it has been alleged that he took out a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM and paid the same to the counsel concerned for filing an appeal in this case. Apparently, thus, the plea of Shri Kharlia that amount was paid to counsel through a bank transfer is totally incorrect. In addition thereto, the additional affidavit dated 12.11.2021 suffers from concealment of fact inasmuch as the fact that Smt. Anop Kanwar is portrayed to be alive in the affidavit. A great doubt is thus, created in the mind
(4 of 4)
[SAW-239/2020]
of the Court regarding the credentials of Shri Rajveer Singh, who has filed this appeal. It is neither stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor in the complaint filed in the Bar Council that Shri. Rajveer Singh gave Vakalatnama and signed affidavit for filing the appeal. Thus, the plea that the counsel did not file the appeal despite having been instructed is patently false. The photostat copy of the will which has been filed along with the appeal was allegedly executed on 18.08.2000. Apparently, since, Smt. Anop Kanwar had expired, the power of attorney would have become ineffective. The will seems to have been created at a subsequent stage.
As a consequence, we are of the firm opinion that Shri Rajveer Singh seems to be a busy-body who has somehow or the other, cast evil eyes on the land of Smt. Anop Kanwar taking advantage of her death. The averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are totally false and fabricated. The gross delay of more than ten years which has occasioned in filing of the appeal is not explained and hence, the instant appeal (writ) is dismissed as being time barred.
(FARJAND ALI),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
3-Sudhir Asopa/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the intra-court appeal filed by the appellant is bar by limitation and liable to be dismissed.
Whether the averments of bonafide misunderstanding by counsel and the applicant's credentials are tenable in the circumstances.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Anop Kanwar (Deceased) Widow Of Late Shri Amar Singh / Shri Rajveer Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Sandeep Mehta
Farjand Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
