Disposed

N.I.C.Ltd. v. Liladhar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2024CRES/103/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration application seeking revival of a civil misc. appeal dismissed in default for non-compliance with a peremptory order. Delay of 1184 days condoned, name of deceased respondent deleted, appeal restored qua respondent No.4 subject to deposit of Rs.3,000 as cost.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeal SBCMA No.152/2008 restored qua respondent No.4 subject to Rs.3,000 cost deposit; respondent No.1's name deleted from cause title.

N.I.C.Ltd. Vs Liladhar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:26661]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Restoration No. 103/2019

¶4

National Insurance Company Limited through Its Legally Constituted Authority, Regional Office, Sun Tower, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Liladhar S/o Shri Natthu Ram Jogi, R/o Village Khachwana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Sh. Liladhar Jogi, R/o Village Khachwana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶9

Shri Dinesh Yadav S/o Maharaj Singh Yadav, R/o Village Geeja, Tehsil Sefai, District Itawa, Up. Presently Working As Driver Gati Transport Company, Sarkhej, District Gandhinagar. Gujarat (Driver)

¶10

Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Agarwal, R/ o Block No. 53/2, C.h. Type Sector No. 28, Gandhinagar, Gujarat (Owner)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

03/07/2024

¶16

The matter comes up on application (01/24) filed under Section 151 CPC for deleting the name of respondent No.1 from the array of respondents as his legal representatives is already on record.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Amended cause title has been filed and taken on record.

[2024:RJ-JD:26661]

[CRES-103/2019]

(2 of 2)

An application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1184 days in filing the restoration application.

¶22

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing restoration application is condoned.

¶23

The instant restoration application has been filed by the petitioner-applicant seeking restoration of the civil misc. appeal bearing SBCMA No.152/2008 qua respondent No.4, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 11.07.2014 on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 14.02.2014 passed by this Court.

¶24

Having considered the grounds as set out in the restoration application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed and the appeal bearing SBCMA No.152/2008, is ordered to be restored to its original number qua respondent No.4, subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit a cost of Rs.3,000/before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.

¶25

Office to proceed.

¶26

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶27

24-amit/-

N.I.C.Ltd. v. Liladhar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.I.C.Ltd. v. Liladhar and Ors.

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

Sharmila Bhootra Vs Shanker Lal Sharma

U.I.Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Lila and Ors.

Lrs. of Late Narendra Kumar Johri Vs Virendra Chand Kumbhat

Rajvanti and Ors. Vs Bhagwan Das and Ors.

Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Banshi Lal and Ors.

Smt. Tara Devi and Ors. Vs Smt. Madhubala and Ors.