Allowed

Lrs of Rawata Ram v. Mahendra

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2023CRES/60/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a restoration application and an application for condonation of delay. The court held that a party should not suffer for counsel's inadvertence in the impugned order and restored the appeal to its original number, directing filing of requisite documents within two days.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The restoration application is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number.

Lrs of Rawata Ram Vs Mahendra — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:27361]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Restoration No. 60/2019

¶4

Lrs Of Rawata Ram, S/o Shri Motiram Jat, R/o Hardaswali Bas, Athuna, Tehsil Rawatsar Through His Power Of Attorney Udmiram S/o Rawati Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Hardaswali Bas, Athuna, Tehsildar Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh ) Through Lrs -

¶5

1/1. Udmiram S/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 67 Years, 1/2. Shanti D/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 68 Years, 1/3. Vidhya D/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 64 Years, 1/4. Chando D/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 62 Years, 1/5. Omprakash S/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 58 Years, 1/6. Guddi D/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 53 Years, 1/7. Jagdish S/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 48 Years, 1/8. Phoosa Ram D/o Late Rawat Ram, Aged About 46 Years, 1/9. Lichhma W/o Late Rawata Ram, Aged About 86 Years, All B/c Akwam Jat, R/o Hardaswali Bas Athuna, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mahendra S/o Late Ranjeet, B/c Jat, R/o Hardaswali Bas, Athuna, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh

¶9

Doodaram S/o Late Ranjeet, B/c Jat, R/o Hardaswali Bas, Athuna, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh

¶10

Savitri W/o Late Ranjeet, B/c Jat, R/o Hardaswali Bas, Athuna, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh

¶11

Saroj D/o Late Ranjeet Jat, W/o Chetram S/o Girdhari Khichar, At Present R/o Kansar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶12

Vimla D/o Ranjeet, W/o Gopal S/o Girdhari Jat R/o Khichad At Present Kansar Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh

¶13

Suresh Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Jat, (Dudi) R/o Lalania Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶16

: Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan : Mr. I.R. Choudhary

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:27361]

[CRES-60/2019]

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶21

29/08/2023

¶22

The present restoration application has been preferred against the order dated 06.07.2018 whereby the First Appeal No.330/2016 was dismissed in pursuance to the per emptory order dated 02.05.2018 as the requisite PF and notices were not filed. Vide order dated 02.05.2018, a week’s time was granted to file requisites failing which the appeal was directed to be dismissed without reference to the Court.

¶23

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed for condoning the delay of 109 days occurred in filing the present restoration application. It has been submitted in the application that on 02.05.2018 inadvertently, the counsel could not appear and the per emptory order was passed in his absence. He therefore, was not aware of the same and could not comply with the said order.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the delay does not deserve to be condoned.

¶25

In view of the submissions made in the application, it is clear that the default, if any, was on part of the counsel appearing for the appellant and a party to the litigation cannot be made to suffer because of any inadvertence or default on part of the counsel. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is therefore, allowed. The delay occurred in filing the present restoration application is condoned.

¶26

(3 of 3) [CRES-60/2019]

¶27

[2023:RJ-JD:27361]

¶28

For the same reasons as aforesaid, the present restoration application is also allowed . Let the appeal be restored to its original number.

¶29

The requisite PF and notices be filed within a period of two days. If the same are not filed within the stipulated period, the present order would cease to exist.

¶30

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶31

154-KashishS/-

Lrs of Rawata Ram v. Mahendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Rawata Ram v. Mahendra

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

Richpal Singh Vs Meena Devi

Tulsiram Vs Shantilal

Balu Ram Vs Bheru Lal

Hamid Khan Vs Lrs of Shri Mustafa Khan

Firm Khubi Ram Shri Niwas and Ors. Vs Food Corporation of India

Lanco Solar Energy Private Ltd. Vs Tansingh Chouhan