Dismissed¶¶24

Satyanarayan Agarwal v. Union of India Thr Gen Manager and Anr.

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2025CMA/2295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; sufficient cause; illness explanation without medical evidence; delay of 94 days; appeal dismissed as time-barred; S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2295/2018; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Ganesh Ram Meena, J.; challenge to judgment dated 25.09.2017 of Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan; Satyanarayan Agarwal v. Union of India.

What did the court decide?

The application did not disclose what the illness was or its duration, and no document relating to illness or treatment was placed on record. ¶¶17

Satyanarayan Agarwal Vs Union of India Thr Gen Manager and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:16910]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2295/2018

Satyanarayan Agarwal

----Appellant

Versus

Union Of India Thr Gen Manager And Anr

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Kumar For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

22/04/2025

¶13

This appeal has been preferred on 26.04.2018 with a challenge to judgment dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the objection/application was dismissed.

¶14

The appeal has been filed by the delay of 94 days and application for condonation of delay has also been field.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing of the impugned judgment, the appellant fell ill and he could not contact the counsel for filing the appeal. He further submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither malafide nor deliberate.

¶16

Considered the submissions and also perused the averments made in the application for condonation of delay.

¶17

The appellant has only stated that after passing of the impugned judgment he fell ill and could not contact the counsel for fling the appeal. Nothing has been disclosed in the application that what was the illness and for how much period he remained ill.

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:16910]

[CMA-2295/2018]

No any document related to illness or treatment has been placed on record.

¶22

While considering the application for condonation of delay, Court has to see whether the explanation submitted by the appellant is justified. In the present case, the explanation submitted by the appellant is without any documentary proof which cannot be said to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the Court finds no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶23

As a result, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

¶24

Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal is time barred and the same is also dismissed.

¶25

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶26

GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /27

Satyanarayan Agarwal v. Union of India Thr Gen Manager and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Agarwal v. Union of India Thr Gen Manager and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devnarayan S/O Gyarsi Lal Gurjar Vs Mohammad Nasir S/O Mohammad Eshak

Gopal Goyal S/O Late Shri Babulal Vs Project Director

Ashish Kumar S/O Shri Subhash Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Naveen Khan @ Obama @ Nabi @ Naved @ Nadeem S/O Naumuddin Nemi Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Naveen Khan @ Obama @ Nabi @ Naved @ Nadeem S/O Naumuddin Nemi Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Champa Devi W/O Chhitar Mal Vs Chola Mandlam Ms General Insurance Company Limited