Disposed

Jitendra Kumar Mathur v. Rajasthan Agriculture University

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2022WMAP/310/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restored Special Appeal (Writ) No.578/2007 after condoning a ten-day delay in depositing court costs of Rs.250. The petitioner was unaware the appeal was not restored, leading to the application for early listing.

What did the court decide?

The application for restoration is accepted and Special Appeal (Writ) No.578/2007 is restored to its original number.

Jitendra Kumar Mathur Vs Rajasthan Agriculture… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 310/2021

¶3

Jitendra Kumar Mathur S/o Shri Bishan Raj, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Mathur, R/o Va-30, Udai Park, Sector No. 5, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner Through Its Registrar, Bikaner.

¶7

Maharana Pratap Agriculture University, Udaipur Through Its Deen, College Of Technology And Agriculture Engineering, Udaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore through VC. For Respondent(s) : -

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶11

Order

¶12

10/01/2022

¶13

The Special Appeal (Writ) No.578/2007 preferred by the appellant, which had previously been dismissed for want of prosecution, was restored vide order dated 28.04.2011 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.250/- as cost within 15 days from the date of order. It is stated that the said amount of Rs.250/- was deposited with a delay of 10 days i.e. on 24.05.2011. This assertion is supported by the report of the concerned clerk. Learned counsel Shri Shambhoo Singh submits that the appellant was not aware that the appeal had not been restored pursuant to deposit of the amount of cost and hence, he

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[WMAP-310/2021]

¶16

did not take any steps in this regard. However, when an application for early listing was moved, it came to light that the appeal had not been restored pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2011. In these circumstances, this restoration application has been moved.

¶17

Considering the submissions advanced by Shri Shambhoo Singh and the facts and circumstances as prevailing above, we deem it fit to condone the delay in depositing the cost and to restore the Special Appeal (Writ) No.578/2007 to its original number.

¶18

Accordingly, the restoration application is accepted and the Special Appeal (Writ) No.578/2007 is restored to its original number.

¶19

Office to proceed.

¶20

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶21

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶22

42-Tikam/-

Jitendra Kumar Mathur v. Rajasthan Agriculture University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Mathur v. Rajasthan Agriculture University

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

Teja Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitan Singh Vs State

Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Aslam Shah Vs State

Rajesh Kumar Vs Shri Sanwar Mal Verma

Smt. Saraswati Vs the State of Rajasthan