Dismissed

Shri Padamchand S/O Late Shri Shantilal, v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2024CRES/25/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought restoration of a dismissed misc. appeal with an application to condone a 2606-day delay, alleging their earlier advocate misled them about the appeal's pendency. The court found the averments vague and no plausible cause shown, and dismissed both the condonation application and the restoration application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Padamchand S/O Late Shri Shantilal, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5660]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 25/2023

¶4

Shri Padamchand S/o Late Shri Shantilal, R/o 4021, Mahadev Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶5

Shri Puneet S/o Shri Padamchand, R/o 4021, Mahadev Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶6

Kumari Rishika D/o Shri Padamchand, R/o 4021, Mahadev Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶7

Smt. Sharbat Devi W/o Shri Shantilal, R/o 4021, Mahadev Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶8

Shri Shantilal Jain S/o Late Shri Sujanmal(Deceased), R/o 4021, Mahadev Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office 3- Middleton, Street Kolkata, Branch Office Patwari, Kutchery Road, Ajmer. (Raj.).

¶12

Gurjeet Singh S/o Shri Bharpur Singh, Through Trola Union Mansa Punjab, R/o Aw 385, Sanjay Guddi.

¶13

Gurmel Singh S/o Lal Singh, Village Behmekala, District Mansa Punjab.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶17

Order

¶18

02/02/2024

¶19

This restoration application has been filed for restoration of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3491/2005. Along with the said application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 2606 days.

[2024:RJ-JP:5660]

[CRES-25/2023]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that delay in filing the restoration application is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 2606 days in filing the restoration application may be condoned.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the applicants on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶25

The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:-

¶26

“2. That applicants came to know regarding dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance of peremptory order dated 13.08.2015 in the month of November 2022. Applicants earlier advocate kept them under illusion that appeal is pending for service of respondent No.2, therefore, appeal has not been decided on merits.

¶27

That when applicants continuously asking to their earlier advocate to put their appeal in Lok Adalat then no satisfactory reply was given and applicants through their local counsel of Ajmer enquired about status of appeal then they came to know that appeal was dismisssed in the year 2015. Thereafter, on 2.12.2022 applicants applied for certified copy of order, which has been received on 5.12.2022. Therefore, from the date of receiving the certified copy of order dated 16.10.2015, present restoration application is submitted within 30 days.”

¶28

The applicants have not shown any plausible cause for filing the present restoration application after an inordinate delay of 2606 days. Nothing has been mentioned as to what steps were taken by the applicants against the erstwhile Advocate. No date has been mentioned as to when the applicants contacted their erstwhile counsel and asked him to put up their appeal in Lok Adalat and when they met their local counsel for Ajmer and enquired about the status of the case. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 2606 days. Thus, application filed by the

¶29

(3 of 3) [CRES-25/2023]

¶30

[2024:RJ-JP:5660]

¶31

applicant for condonation of 2606 days delay in filing the restoration application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶32

Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the restoration application also stands dismissed.

¶33

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.

¶34

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶35

Jatin /345

Shri Padamchand S/O Late Shri Shantilal, v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Padamchand S/O Late Shri Shantilal, v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parwati and Anr. Vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Vakil S/O Gaffar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Singh Son of Shri Goverdhan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jahid S/O Aarif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Bhagwani Devi W/O Late Shri Nanuram Vs Dara Singh S/O Shri Sawalram

The National Insurance Company Vs Sheeladevi and Ors.