The High Court dismissed an application seeking restoration of an appeal dismissed by the Registrar (Judicial) for non-prosecution.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:14992]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 92/2023
In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.121/2014
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager, Corporate Office, E/8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney.
----Appellant/Non-Claimant
Versus
(2 of 4)
[2023:RJ-JP:14992]
[CRES-92/2023]
----Non-Claimants/Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
21/07/2023
The matter comes up on misc. application No.92/2023 filed by the appellant-Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC for restoration of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.121/2014 which has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.08.2018 by the Registrar (Judicial).
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellantInsurance Company filed an appeal No.121/2014 against the order and judgment passed by MACT-ADJ No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan in Claim Case No.140/2012. In that appeal, 11 respondents were arrayed. Vide order dated 13.05.2014 in appeal No.121/2014 as Mr. Vinay Mathur, learned counsel was appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Noor Ahmed, learned counsel was appearing on behalf of the Advocate Ms. Sonia Shandilya for the respondent No.11-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
[2023:RJ-JP:14992]
[CRES-92/2023]
(3 of 4)
Service of respondent Nos.6 to 10 was dispensed with by the Court. In view of the above, the appellant had nothing to do to file any process fee/notices against any of the respondents and the matter was listed for hearing.
Learned counsel further submitted that against the same order of learned MACT-ADJ No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, two other appeals were also filed S.B. C.M.A. No.127/2014 was filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and another appeal was filed by Anita Devi bearing No.1946/2014. Those appeals were listed on 30.05.2018 before the Court and in these appeals notices were to be issued against some of the respondents but appellants failed to file process fee and notices, therefore, peremptory order in these appeals were passed on 23.05.2018 and ordered that if process fee/notices were not filed within two days from the date of order, appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
Registrar (Judicial) on 03.08.2018 dismissed the appeal No.121/2014 filed by the present appellant in compliance of the peremptory order. Whereas, there was no peremptory order in misc. appeal No.121/2014. It seems that Registrar (Judicial) passed the order dated 03.08.2018 dismissing the C.M.A. No.121/2014 wrongly and without any jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) on 03.08.2018 dismissing the C.M.A. No.121/2014 is quashed and set aside. The appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number.
For the reasons stated in the application (I.A. No.672/2023), the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
(4 of 4)
[2023:RJ-JP:14992]
[CRES-92/2023]
Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
List after four weeks.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
MADAN/40
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.121/2014 by the Registrar (Judicial) on 03.08.2018 was without jurisdiction and violative of peremptory orders.
Whether the appeal under S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.121/2014 should be restored to its original list.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Anita Devi
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
