Allowed

Lrs of Hari Ram v. Kojki

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2024CRES/44/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed an application for restoration of an appeal barred by time. It condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, finding that counsel was unaware of a common order and the case was not significantly prejudiced.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed; the delay is condoned; the restoration application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number.

Lrs of Hari Ram Vs Kojki — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:7436]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Restoration No. 44/2019

LRs of Hari Ram

----Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Kojki and Others.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Manish Rajpurohit for Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

13/02/2024

¶13

As per office report dated 04.11.2023, service on respondent No.5 is complete. It seems that the said report of the respondent having denied to accept the notice has inadvertently been read as “respondent No.5 having died”.

¶14

In view of the same, no steps are required to be taken qua respondent No.5.

¶15

The service is hence complete.

¶16

The present restoration application has been preferred aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) whereby appeal of the appellant was dismissed in compliance of the peremptory order dated 05.10.2012 as passed by the Court.

¶17

The restoration application is reported to be barred by 2119 days.

[2024:RJ-JD:7436]

[CRES-44/2019]

(2 of 3)

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of the said delay.

¶22

A reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if the averment of the appellant that he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only after the notices/summons of the execution proceedings having been served, is believed to be true, there is no reason as to why the present restoration application has been preferred after a period of almost three years from the said information.

¶23

Responding to the said objection, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it was only due to the inadvertence of the counsel representing the appellants at that point of time that the notices could not be filed and the factum of the dismissal of the appeal was not informed to the appellant.

¶24

Heard the counsels and perused the record.

¶25

A perusal of the order dated 05.10.2012 passed in the appeal makes it clear that a common order was passed in number of appeals and it is quite natural that the counsel might be unaware of the said common order been passed. As submitted in the application, the counsel was unaware of the order dated 05.10.2012 and hence, requisite PF & notices for respondent No.5 could not be filed within the stipulated period.

¶26

It is also clear on record that in the appeal, all the respondents except respondent No.5 were served. Respondent No.5 was the driver and hence, his non-service was also not of much consequence.

[2024:RJ-JD:7436]

[CRES-44/2019]

(3 of 3)

In view of above facts and in view of the fact that all the contesting parties were served in the appeal and the appeal was barred by only one day, this Court deems it proper to condone the delay in filing the present restoration application.

¶31

Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed . The delay caused in filing the restoration application is condoned.

¶32

For the same reasons, the restoration application is also allowed . Let the appeal be restored to its original number.

¶33

The application preferred for early listing is also disposed

¶34

of .

¶35

List the appeal on 20.02.2024.

¶36

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶37

122-Vij/-

Lrs of Hari Ram v. Kojki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Hari Ram v. Kojki

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

Reliance G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Smt.Kiran and Ors.

Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kali Bai and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nirbhay Singh and Ors.

Ramesh Vs Veniram Ghameti

M/S Adeshwar Infrastructures Vs M/S Amra Ram Kumawat

Brijlal Vs Mahendra Singh