The High Court of Rajasthan allowed condonation of a 200-day delay in filing a restoration application under the Limitation Act and permitted restoration of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC, listing the matter for further proceedings.
Delay allowed; Civil Misc. Appeal restored to original number; matter listed for 01.12.2023.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Restoration No. 93/2020
----Petitioners
(2 of 2) [CRES-93/2020]
Baas, Ward No. 06, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur (Regd. Owner)
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Mohan Ram Choudhary |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vishal Singhal with Ms. Anamika |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
01/11/2023
Heard on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
The delay of 200 days in filing the restoration application is condoned.
Heard on application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with CPC for restoration of appeal.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the grounds set out in the application for restoration, the same is allowed.
The Civil Misc. Appeal is restored to its original number. Office to proceed.
List the matter on 01.12.2023 alongwith CMA No.1620/18.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
95-neha/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 200 days for filing restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is prima facie justified.
Whether restoration of civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC is rightly permitted.
What are the consequences of allowing restoration of the appeal to its original number for the next hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None citedReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Rukam Kanwar
Ratan Kanwar
Phoolchand
Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd.
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
