Dismissed

Gavari Devi v. Sardar Khan

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CMA/1066/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur examined a civil miscellaneous appeal where appellants failed to file a second set of service notices and a plaint despite prior extensions. Noting non-compliance, the court dismissed the appeal and disposed of pending limitation applications. No lawyer appeared.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with directions to file notices and plaint. Limitation applications were disposed of.

Gavari Devi Vs Sardar Khan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11819]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1066/2020

¶4

Gavari Devi W/o Vaga Ram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Lunol , Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi

¶5

Sukna Kumari D/o Vaga Ram, Aged About 22 Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Lunol , Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi

¶6

Chanda Kumari D/o Vaga Ram, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Lunol , Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi

¶7

Pooja Kumari D/o Vaga Ram, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Lunol , Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi

¶8

Gudiya Kumari D/o Vaga Ram, Aged About 19 Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Lunol , Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi

¶9

Heena Kumari D/o Vaga Ram, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Legal Representative Mother Gavari Devi W/o Vaga Ram Aged 42 Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Lunol , Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi

¶10

Nitesh Kumar S/o Vaga Ram, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Legal Representative Mother Gavari Devi W/o Vaga Ram Aged 42 Years, B/c Meghwal , R/o Lunol , Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi

¶11

----Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Sardar Khan S/o Mashru Khan, B/c Muslim , R/o Koliwaas, Reoder Tehsil Reoder , Distt. Sirohi (Driver Cum Owner)

¶14

Chola Mandalam M S General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Khimeshra Tower, 5, Bapu Baazar, Udaipur (Insurer)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) : None present

¶17

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶18

Order

¶19

11/03/2024

¶20

Lawyers are abstaining from work.

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:11819]

[CMA-1066/2020]

None has appeared for the appellants.

¶25

On 26.07.2023, none appeared on behalf of the appellants

¶26

and the following order was passed by the Court:

¶27

“As per the office report, notices have been filed only in one set despite the order dated 15.05.2023 to file the same in two sets.

¶28

A week’s time is granted to file one extra set of notices. On the same being filed, let it be given ‘dasti’ to learned counsel for the appellant to be sent through registered post.

¶29

If the notices are not filed within the stipulated period, the appeal be listed for dismissal before the Court.”

¶30

Subsequent to that, the matter was listed on 07.11.2023 and on that date also, time was granted and the matter was directed to be listed on 11.03.2024.

¶31

As per the office report, complete PF & notices have not been filed till date.

¶32

In view of the same, the present appeal is dismissed in non-compliance.

¶33

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and all pending application, if any, stand disposed of .

¶34

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶35

75-KashishS/-

Gavari Devi v. Sardar Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gavari Devi v. Sardar Khan

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

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Das Arora Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikas Muniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Asha Ram Vs Pushkarna Brahmin Bhimji Ka Mohala and Anr.

Hemant and Ors. Vs the Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Meena Vs Maan Singh