Dismissed

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2022WRES/110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for restoration of a previously dismissed Special Appeal. The court held that the applicants failed to prove bonafide grounds for condoning a four-year delay in filing, resulting in dismissal as time-barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed. Restoration application dismissed as time-barred.

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Restoration No. 110/2021

¶3

Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 44 Years, Village Bamnera, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali (Rajasthan).

¶4

Rajkumar S/o Shri Chatra Ram Raibad, Aged About 38 Years, Vpo Netra, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Family Affairs, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Directorate, Medical And Health Services, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)	: :	Mr. Rajendra --	Singh Charan

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

13/10/2022

¶14

This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the applicants-appellants seeking restoration/revival of the Special Appeal (Writ) No.843/2016 which was dismissed by this Court on account of non-compliance of the per-emptory order dated 07.03.2017. The application has been filed after almost four years. An appplication has been filed on behalf of the applicants-appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay. At para 4 of the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[WRES-110/2021]

¶17

application, it is mentioned that they were not aware of the order dated 07.03.2017. In the month of April, 2021, when the appellants approached their counsel, it came to their knowledge that the special appeal had already been dismissed.

¶18

It may be noted here that even as per the admitted case of the applicants-appellants, they became cognizant of the factum of the dismissal of the appeal in the month of April, 2021, yet the restoration application came to be filed in the month of July, 2021. Thus, we are not satisfied with the grounds set out in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and feel that the prayer made by the applicants for condnonation of delay is not bonafide. Thus, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. As a consequence, the restoration application is dismissed as being time-barred.

¶19

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 38-Sudhir Asopa/-

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

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

M/S Swaroop Art Vs Union of India

Mana Ram and Ors. Vs State

Neha Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Bharti and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Pura Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh Vs Gaganbala