National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Kishan Lal S/O Shri Gokul Chand

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6524]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 49/2023

¶4

In

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2585/2009

¶6

National Insurance Company Limited, DO-I, Through Its Manager (Legal) Having Its Regional Office At Jeevan Nidhi Lic Building Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.Kishan Lal S/o Shri Gokul Chand, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Asampur, P.S. Patan, District Sikar Rajasthan- Driver.

¶10

..Respondent/Claimant

¶11

Shri Tara Chand S/o Daloo Ram Saini, r/o Dhani Dasa Wali, Mohalla Budhara, Kotputli District Jaipur Owner

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4582/2009

¶15

Kishan Lal son of Shri Gokul Chand, resident of VillageAasampur, Police-station -Patan, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶16

----appellant

¶17

Versus

¶18

Tara Chand son of Shri Dalu Ram Saini, resident of VillageDhani Dasa Wali, Mohalla-Buchada, Kotputali, District-Jaipur (Raj.)

¶19

...Non-claimant-respondent-employer 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its regional office Narayan Singh Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	:	Ms. Manju Jain through VC in S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 49/2023
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Ishika Kothari for Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma &
		Mr. C.L. Saini in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
		No. 4582/2009

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:6524]

[CRES-49/2023]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶26

Order

¶27

12/02/2025

¶28

S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 49/2023:-

¶29

The instant restoration application is preferred by appellant

¶30

non-claimant/Insurance Company to restore S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2585/2009, which was dismissed on 11.01.2023 for non compliance of order dated 10.10.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellantInsurance Company has filed a civil miscellaneous appeal aggrieved from award dated 27.02.2009 in claim case No. WCCNF 400/2007 passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation Act, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur but during pendency of miscellaneous appeal, an application for withdrawal of appeal under Section 151 CPC was filed in light of judgment in case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha : (2019) 11 SCC 514 . She further submits that this application was inadvertently dismissed as withdrawn on 12.12.2022. She further submits that she was not aware about order dated 10.10.2022. At last, she submits that the appeal may be restore to original number.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also peruse the material placed on record.

¶33

Aggrieved from award dated 27.02.2009, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2585/2009 was filed by appellant-

[2025:RJ-JP:6524]

[CRES-49/2023]

(3 of 4)

Insurance Company. This appeal was admitted on 17.07.2009 on two substantial questions of law as framed by this Court.

¶38

On 30.05.2012, a pre-emptory order was passed and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed on 09.08.2012. Ultimately, the appeal was restored by order dated 01.02.2013. 6. The matter remained pending for issuance of fresh notice but notice upon respondent No.2 could not be served due to incorrect address. The appellant has failed to file correct address and preemptory order was passed on 10.10.2022 which resulted into dismissal on 11.01.2023. Till date no compliance has been made and fresh address of respondent No.2 has not been filed.

¶39

Judgment in case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (supra) is applicable only when the appeal is at admission stage but the substantial questions of law have already been framed on 17.07.2009, therefore, it has no application for now.

¶40

Considering the fact that the civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed for non compliance and compliance has not been made till date, therefore, the S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not liable to be restored. There is no sufficient ground to consider restoration of S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2585/2009. 9. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the restoration application filed by applicant appellant is hereby dismissed.

¶41

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4582/2009:-

¶42