Quashed

Richpal Singh S/O Ujeen Singh v. Mangej Singh S/O Shri Ganpat Singh

Rajasthan HC7 May 2024CW/2376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that the impugned order rejecting a civil misc appeal on limitation grounds must be quashed. The court found the reasons for delay satisfactory and remitted the matter to the Appellate Court to hear it on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Additional District Judge quashed and set aside; matter remitted to Appellate Court to re-register appeal and decide on merits.

Richpal Singh S/O Ujeen Singh Vs Mangej… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2376/2024

¶3

Richpal Singh S/o Ujeen Singh, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Village Karga Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mangej Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Village Karanga Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Murdhar Kanwar W/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Karanga Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶8

Supyar Kanwar W/o Shri Chhog Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Village Karanga Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Sub Registrar, Fatehpur

¶10

Tehsildar, Fatehpur

¶11

Patwari Halka Nayabas, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawat.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Martand Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

07/05/2024

¶17

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehpur-Shekhawati, Sikar, by which the civil misc. appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Fathepur, District Sikar has been rejected on the ground of limitation.

¶18

[CW-2376/2024]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the suit filed by the petitioner an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was submitted before the Senior Civil Judge, Fatehpur for passing the appropriate order on temporary injunction application, however the said application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 18.07.2023. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a civil misc. appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fatehpur Shikhawati with slight delay of two months along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, explaining the reasons of delay. Counsel submits that instead of condoning the delay and hearing the matter on merits, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected on a technical count that it was barred by limitation. Counsel submits that the reasons of delay were well explained but they were not taken into account while passing the impugned order, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 was passed by the Senior Civil Judge against which an appeal was preferred with slight delay of two months along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act explaining the reasons for delay. The reasons mentioned in the application are found to be satisfactory, hence under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that matter is required to be heard on its merit by the Appellate Court.

¶22

[CW-2376/2024]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Court to re-register the appeal on to its original number and to hear and decide the same on its merits, after providing the due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.

¶25

Stay application and all pending application, if any also stand disposed of.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

Ashu/4

Richpal Singh S/O Ujeen Singh v. Mangej Singh S/O Shri Ganpat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Richpal Singh S/O Ujeen Singh v. Mangej Singh S/O Shri Ganpat Singh

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

Monika Garg D/O Pawan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Lal S/O Bheru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shyamwati Filling Station Vs State Food and Civil Suppliesors

Govindsharan Bhangla S/O Late Shri Nonad Ram Ji Bhangla Vs Bhagwan Sahai Gupta S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal

Shri Govind Singh S/O Hajari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Regar Vs Rampratap Khedia S/O Ganesh Narayan Khedia