Partly allowed

Ram Prakash Vaid v. J D a and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2023CW/14820/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing his appeal on limitation grounds. The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the petitioner's illness-based delay justifications and ordered the Impugned Order quashed for a decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed. Directions issued to Appellate Tribunal to decide appeal on merits within 3 months.

Ram Prakash Vaid Vs J D a and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14820/2011

¶3

Ram Prakash Vaid S/o Shri Badrinarain Vaid, age about 62 years, R/o Village Niwaru, Tehsil & District Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Jaipur Development Authority through Secretary, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Indira Circle, Jaipur. 2. The Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Tribunal, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Dutt Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Chitra Goyal for Mr. Ram Singh Bhati

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

04/12/2023

¶12

Aggrieved by the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘the Appellate Tribunal’), instant petition has been filed.

¶13

By passing the order dated 05.05.2011, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.11.2009 on the ground of limitation.

¶14

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2009, the petitioner submitted statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal with the delay of nine months and 10 days. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not well and he was suffering from ailment at the relevant time and the Doctor advised him rest. Counsel submits that after

¶15

[CW-14820/2011]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

recovery from the ailment, he approached the Appellate Tribunal by way of filing appeal alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Counsel submits that the appeal was dismissed on a technical count of limitation and the same was not decided by the Appellate Tribunal on the merits of the case. Counsel submits that the reasons of delay in filing the appeal were explained but those reasons were not properly considered by the Appellate Tribunal, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Jaipur Development Authority. The record indicates that at the relevant time, the petitioner was suffering from ailment that is why delay has occurred in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The reasons of delay were well explained by the petitioner in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reasons were not properly considered by the Tribunal and the appeal has been dismissed not on merits but on the technical count of limitation. The reasons of delay has been justified by the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal stands quashed and set aside.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of with directions of the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal on its merits after

¶21

[CW-14820/2011]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

affording due opportunity of hearing to other sides, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶26

KuD/78

Ram Prakash Vaid v. J D a and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash Vaid v. J D a and Anr.

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

Jawahar Bhai Pareekh S/O Sh. Bachu Bhai Vs State of Rajasthan

Jawahar Bhai Pareekh S/O Sh. Bachu Bhai Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishram Son of Ramanand Vs State of Rajasthan

Nand Singh Son of Kan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Ziquitza Health Care Limited Vs District Collector

Sandeep Jain Son of Shri Bhag Chand Jain Vs Jaipur Development Authority