The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a restoration application and a condonation of delay application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court held that the applicants failed to provide plausible reasons for the unprecedented delay of 5951 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:49468]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 366/2024
in
SB Civil First Appeal No. 208/2002
----Petitioners
Versus
(2 of 5) [CRES-366/2024]
[2024:RJ-JP:49468]
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Adv. With |
|---|---|
| Ms. Vasudha Dixit | |
| For Respondent(s) | : |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
02/12/2024
Matter comes up on an application No. 1/2024 filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for taking the legal representatives of deceased appellant- Gangoli on record. Along with the said application, another application No. 2/2024 has also been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. Delay in filing the application is condoned, legal representative of deceased appellant- Gangoli as described in para No.2 of the application are taken on record. Defect No.2 pointed out by the Office is condoned.
This restoration application has been filed for restoration of S.B. Civil First Appeal No.208/2002. Along with the said application, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 5951 days.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filing the restoration application is unintentional. So, in the
[2024:RJ-JP:49468]
[CRES-366/2024]
(3 of 5)
interest of justice, delay of 5951 days in filing the restoration application may be condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act.
The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:-
“That father of the applicants appointed an advocate for filing the appeal. Father of the applicants was regularly in touch with his advocate but the counsel for the appellant has not informed about any peremptory order to the applicants as well as their father. Father of the applicants expired on 09.04.2012. The applicants were enjoying the property in dispute but suddenly on 28.02.2024 one notice was received by the applicants from the Court of Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar in which the date was fixed as 02.03.2024.
That after receiving the notices, the applicants inquired about the notice then it was informed by a counsel in the ADJ Court that one execution petition was filed against them for execution of the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2002.
That after getting the knowledge of filing the execution application, applicants came to the office of their counsel at the High Court Jaipur. The counsel for the applicants inquired about the same and informed the applicants that this appeal has already been dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2007 in pursuance of peremptory order dated 11.07.2007.
(4 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:49468]
[CRES-366/2024]
That thereafter certified copies of the orders dated 11.07.2007 and 29.08.2007 have been obtained on 07.03.2024.
That the delay in filing the restoration application is bonafide and unintentional and it is purely a mistake of earlier counsel of the applicants. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay may kindly be condoned.”
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s. Concord Of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and ors. ”, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1666, in the case of “ Rafiq and Anr. Vs. Munshilal and Anr.” reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 and in the case of “Smt. Lachi Tewari and Ors. Vs. Director of Land Records and Ors.”, reported in AIR 1984 SC 41.
The applicants have not shown any plausible cause for filing the present restoration application after an inordinate delay of 5951 days. No name and the date has been mentioned on which the applicants are said to have contacted the counsel in ADJ Court. Nothing has been mentioned as to when the applicants came to the office of their advocate in Jaipur. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 5951 days. Thus, application filed by the applicants for condonation of 5951 days delay in filing the restoration application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(5 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:49468]
[CRES-366/2024]
Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of limitation Act, the restoration application also
stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Ritu/201
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay of 5951 days in filing the restoration application and condonation of delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the legal representatives of the deceased appellant can be taken on record in the civil appeal restoration application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Concord Of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and ors.Referred¶46
M/s. Concord Of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and ors. AIR 1979 SC 1666 · Who else cites this
Rafiq and Anr. Vs. Munshilal and Anr.Referred¶46
Rafiq and Anr. Vs. Munshilal and Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1400 · Who else cites this
Smt. Lachi Tewari and Ors. Vs. Director of Land Records and Ors.Referred¶46
Smt. Lachi Tewari and Ors. Vs. Director of Land Records and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 41 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gangoli Son Of Sh. Balya (Through Legal Representatives)
Gheesa Son Of Sh. Bajani
Meghsingh Son Of Arjun
Tikam Son Of Arjun
Suresh Son Of Arjun
Badam Singh Son Of Arjun
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
