Allowed

Vachan Singh Charan v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CRES/25/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a restoration application and condoned delay, finding that filing notices under an incomplete address constituted non-strict compliance rather than non-compliance, warranting restoration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Restoration application allowed; appeal restored to original number; notices to be filed with correct addresses within one week.

Vachan Singh Charan Vs Bajaj Allianz… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Restoration No. 25/2023

Vachan Singh Charan

----Petitioner

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Rajpal S. Rathore for
	Mr.	JogSingh Bhati
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Dhanpat Choudhary

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶10

Order

¶11

14/03/2024

¶12

The present restoration application has been preferred against the order dated 29.11.2022 whereby the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the per-emptory order dated 14.07.2022.

¶13

The restoration application is reported to be barred by 12 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred for condonation of the said delay.

¶14

The reason assigned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the restoration application is that the notices in pursuance to the order dated 14.07.2022 were very well filed on 02.08.2022 but despite filing of the same, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance.

¶15

A perusal of the office report dated 21.10.2022 makes it clear that although the notices in compliance of the order dated 14.07.2022 were filed by learned counsel for the appellant, the same were not filed with correct and complete address and hence,

¶16

[CRES-25/2023]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

the same was not termed to be strict compliance of the order dated 14.07.2022.

¶19

However, keeping into consideration the fact that the notices were filed in pursuance to the order dated 14.07.2022, this Court is of the opinion that the same, although was not a strict compliance of the order, but then, was not a non-compliance also. Hence, the appeal deserves to be restored.

¶20

In view of the same, for the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed . The delay caused in filing the restoration application is condoned. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the restoration application is also allowed. Let the appeal be restored to its original number. 7. Let notices for respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the appeal, with correct address be filed within a period of one week from now. 8. If notices are filed, let them be issued. If notices with correct address are not filed within the stipulated period, the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

¶21

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶22

61-T.Singh/-

Vachan Singh Charan v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vachan Singh Charan v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. 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

Mohd. Usman Vs Lrs of Ahmed Hussain

Gheesa Lal Vs B.M. I.C.I.C.I Lombard Ins. Co. and Ors.

Shyam Lal @ Babu Lal Kumhar Vs Afsar Mohammad

Dev Kishan Vs Smt. Rekha Devi and Ors.

Dev Kishan Vs Smt. Kamla Devi and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bhanwari Bai