Dismissed

Surajbhan S/O Shri Banwari Lal v. Ramkishan Sharma S/O Roopnarayan

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2023CMA/2426/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application to condone a delay of 1377 days in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court found the reasons insufficient and consequential dismissal of the appeal and stay application followed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the civil miscellaneous appeal, and stay application were all dismissed.

Surajbhan S/O Shri Banwari Lal Vs Ramkishan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2426/2022

¶3

Surajbhan S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Dhani Khariya Ki, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ramkishan Sharma S/o Roopnarayan, Resident Of Village And Post Devan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, At Present Through Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Prabhu Dyal Gupta, Resident Of 43, Shivpuri Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) And D-132, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) (Driver Of Vehicle Jeep No. Rj-14-1C-6077)

¶7

Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Gupta, Resident Of 43, Shivpuri Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) And D-132, Janpath, Shyam Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) (Owner Of Vehicle Jeep No. Rj-14-1C-6077)

¶8

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Office At C-97, Kalyanvila, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Jeep No. Rj-14-1C-6077).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶12

Order

¶13

12/01/2023

¶14

The civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant (for short ‘the claimant) against the judgment dated 27.08.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahpura, District Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal) in Claim Case

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CMA-2426/2022]

¶17

No.381/2003, whereby claim petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed.

¶18

Along with the appeal an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has also been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1377 days in filing the appeal.

¶19

Heard. Considered.

¶20

Reasons given in Para No.2 of the application under

¶21

Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:

¶22

“That after passing of the impugned judgment/award dated 27.08.2018, insurance company submitted execution application No.30/19 for recovery of the difference amount i.e. Rs.32,418/- as against appellant before learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal issued notices of execution application to appellant on 01.06.2019 which were not been served and in meanwhile owner of vehicle got interim stay order from this High Court and subsequently, insurance company entered into compromise with owner of vehicle vide order dated 01.02.2020 but proceeded further with recovery rights against appellant and directed District Collector to recover said amount after attaching property of appellant and in pursuance to that, Tehsildar, Shahpura issued notice dated 21.07.2022 to appellant for attachment and on receiving same, appellants came to know about execution proceedings and immediately applied certified copy of execution proceedings.”

¶23

The claimant has utterly failed to explain as to why he did not file the appeal for enhancement of compensation for such a long time, particularly when he was dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.08.2018. Entirely vague averments have been made and no justifiable reason has been given in the application.

¶24

In this view of the matter, I find no good reason to condone the inordinate delay of 1377 days. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(3 of 3) [CMA-2426/2022]

¶26

Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal as well as stay application also stand dismissed accordingly.

¶27

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶28

Gourav/43

Surajbhan S/O Shri Banwari Lal v. Ramkishan Sharma S/O Roopnarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajbhan S/O Shri Banwari Lal v. Ramkishan Sharma S/O Roopnarayan

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

Shankar Lal @ Shyam Lal Goyal Vs Smt Vidhya Devi and Ors.

Smt Keshar Vs Ramveer Singh and Ors.

Kailash Chandra Goyal S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Goyal Vs Ramesh Chandra Goyal S/O Late Sh. Kedar Prasad Goyal

Smt Shamim Bano Vs Municipal Board Sawai Madhopur

Chandra Ram Gurjar Vs Ismail and Others

Sitaram S/O Shri Arjun Lal Jat Vs Ramkishan Sharma S/O Roopnarayan