Dismissed

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Kohinoor Marbles Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CMA/2473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of a 184-day delay in filing an appeal, noting the absence of specific justification. Consequently, the underlying appeal was also dismissed as time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act dismissed; Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:687-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2473/2022

¶4

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., (Riico) Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Officer Incharge

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Kohinoor Marbles Pvt. Ltd., B-175. Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)-302015, Registered Office At P-7, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur And C-94, Lalkothi Scheme, Jyoti Nagar Road, Jaipur 302015.

¶8

Shri Karnail Singh Kang S/o Balwant Singh, R/o Makrana Road, Gram -Borawar, Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.), And 24-H, Kesri Singh Pur, Distt.-Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶9

Shri Pratap Singh S/o Niranjan Singh, R/o Makrana Road, Village -Borawar, Tehsil Parbatsar, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.), And Villa 20-F, Kesri Singh Pur, Distt.-Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶10

Shri Mahal Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, R/o 15Fc, Kesri Singh Pur, Distt. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶11

Shri Pratap Singh S/o Jawand Singh, R/o 20F, Kesri Singh Pur, Distt. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶15

Order

¶16

05/01/2024

¶17

The matter comes up on an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

[2024:RJ-JP:687-DB]

[CMA-2473/2022]

(2 of 2)

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that some time was taken in departmental proceedings to take decision to file appeal against the impugned order. Thereafter, panel lawyer was appointed and additional documents were collected. Therefore, on account of above reason, there was delay in filing the appeal.

¶22

We have perused the impugned order.

¶23

It is pertinent to note that Court below had allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and had rejected the claim on the ground that application was filed after an inordinate delay of one year. Impugned order was passed on 10.12.2021 and copy of same was received by the appellant on 17.01.2022. Present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 184 days and no specific justification has come on record for this inordinate delay. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed, as barred by limitation.

¶25

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

HEENA/07

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Kohinoor Marbles Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. M/S Kohinoor Marbles Pvt. Ltd.

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

Manoj Sharma S/O Shri Suresh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Son of Shri Ramswaroop Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra S/O Sh. Ramswaroop Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Superintending Engineer (Mm) Vs M/S Western Transformers and Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Superintending Engineer (Mm) Vs M/S Western Transformers and Equipment Pvt. Ltd.