Allowed

Anwar Hussain v. Naveen Kumar

Rajasthan HC22 Mar 2024CRES/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of a dismissed appeal barred by limitation. The High Court condoned a delay of over three years due to the petitioner's inability to notice a common peremptory order passed in dozens of cases, and restored the appeal with a direction to cure defects.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act allowed; delay condoned; restoration application allowed; appeal restored to original number; defects to be cured within two weeks.

Anwar Hussain Vs Naveen Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Restoration No. 59/2023

Anwar Hussain

----Petitioner

Versus

Naveen Kumar

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Apurva Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sunil Vyas

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶10

Order

¶11

22/03/2024

¶12

The present restoration application has been preferred aggrieved of the order dated 28.08.2012 whereby the appeal was dismissed in pursuance to the per-emptory order dated 01.08.2012.

¶13

It has been submitted in the application that the order dated 01.08.2012 was a common order passed in more than forty appeals and hence, the counsel was not aware of the passing of the said per-emptory order. Hence, the defects could not be removed in pursuance to the said per-emptory order and the appeal was ultimately dismissed on 28.08.2012.

¶14

The restoration application is reported to be barred by 3982 days. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it has been submitted that the counsel was not aware of the passing of the order dated 01.08.2012 and the subsequent order dated 28.08.2012.

¶15

Service of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is complete, as (P/A) on behalf of respondent No.3 Insurance

¶16

[CRES-59/2023]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

Company has been filed by counsel Mr. Sunil Vyas and service on other respondents has been dispensed with.

¶19

Heard counsel for the petitioner on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the restoration application.

¶20

The reason stated in the application seem to be a plausible one as evidently, the order dated 01.08.2012 was a general order passed jointly in number of appeals. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the counsels appearing in all those appeals were aware of the said order.

¶21

For the reasons aforesaid, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed . The delay caused in filing the present restoration application is condoned.

¶22

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

¶23

The defect/s as pointed out by the office in the appeal be now cured within a period of two weeks. If the defects are not cured within the stipulated period, the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

¶24

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶25

69-AbhishekK/S.Phophaliya-

Anwar Hussain v. Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Hussain v. Naveen Kumar

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

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Lalita

Narpat Poonar Vs Ajiti Devi

Hamir Singh Vs Pepa Ram @ Pradeep

Rajendra Kumar Vs Smt.Mangla Devi

Kumbharam Vs Kuldeep Singh

Jamnibai Vs Sohanbai