Allowed

Ram Janaki v. Harnath and Others

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2025WRES/36/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration application seeking recall of an order dismissing a writ petition in default for non-appearance of counsel. The court noted the petitioner was a 75-year-old infirm lady whose rights required adjudication on merits and allowed restoration subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.3240/2000 restored to its original number, subject to deposit of Rs.2,000/- cost in Litigants Welfare Fund within two weeks.

Ram Janaki Vs Harnath and Others — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 36/2016

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ petition No.3240/2000

¶5

Ram Janki S/o Late Shri Bhawani Shanker, Sumerganj Mandi, Tehsil Indergarh, District Bundi, Rajasthan

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Harnath S/o Late Shri Sheria, Village Dhakar Dhakar Kheri, Tehsil Indergarh, District Bundi, Rajasthan

¶9

The Tehsildar, Indergarh, District Bundi, Rajasthan

¶10

The Additional Collector Administration, Bundi, Rajasthan

¶11

The Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Shiv Charan Gupta

¶14

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶15

12/08/2025

¶16

The instant restoration application has been submitted for recalling the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by this Court by which the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3240/2000 submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the former counsel for the petitioner was changed and a new counsel was engaged, who could not appear on the fateful day, hence, the case was dismissed in default on 29.10.2015. Counsel submits that the petitioner is an old infirm lady of the age of 75 years and her important rights, title and interest are involved in the matter,

¶18

[WRES-36/2016]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

therefore, the order dated 29.10.2015 be recalled to its original number.

¶21

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that on earlier occasions also, the case was dismissed in default and this is the third time the case has been dismissed. Counsel submits that the petitioner is negligent in prosecuting the matter, that is why, thrice the case was dismissed in default, hence, the order dated 29.10.2015 should not be recalled. Counsel submits that these facts have not been mentioned in the application and the material facts have been concealed. Hence, the order dated 29.10.2015 not be recalled.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶23

This fact is not in dispute that on two earlier occasions also the case was dismissed in default in the year 2005 and 2015. This fact is not in dispute that there was negligence on the part of the Lawyer, who did not appear before the Court when the case was called, but looking to the fact that the petitioner is an old infirm lady of the age of 75 years now and her rights are involved which are required to be adjudicated on merits, after hearing both sides. 6. In the interest of justice, the instant restoration application stands allowed subject to payment of deposition of cost of Rs.2,000/- in the Litigants Welfare Fund of Rajasthan High Court. In case, the cost is deposited by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and receipt of the same is placed on record, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3240/2000 is restored to its original number.

¶24

Office to proceed.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[WRES-36/2016]

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

Aayush Sharma /59

Ram Janaki v. Harnath and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Janaki v. Harnath and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Dinesh Kumar S/O Shri Tarachand Vs State of Rajasthan

Chand Kanwar W/O Shri Pratap Singh Rathore Vs M/S Fitness One

Tijaria Polypipes Limited Vs Bank of India

Tulsirams/O Late Shri Ganesh Narayan through Lrs Vs Govind Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh

Shri Khandelwal Vaishya Mahasabha Higher Education Fund Vs Ministry of Home Affairs

Ratan Lal Meena S/O Sonya Meena Vs State of Rajasthan