[2023/RJJP/000674]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 4/2023
1. State Of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Digod.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Kota.
----Applicants/appellants
Versus
Mathura Lal S/o Heera Lal, R/o Nimoda Hariji, Tehsil Digod,
District Kota.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Order 27/01/2023 Matter has come up on misc. application bearing Inward No.12/2023 filed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants-appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid restoration application.
It is pleaded in the aforesaid application that the appeal was filed on behalf of the appellants against the impugned judgment & decree darted 26.07.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No.16/2012 and against the judgment & decree dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Digod, Kota in Civil Suit No.35/2001. The said appeal came to be listed before the Court on 17.11.2017 but on that day, counsel for the appellants could not appear before the Court and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. The order dated 17.11.2017 (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:03:56 AM) [2023/RJJP/000674] (2 of 3) [CRES-4/2023] passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was neither within the knowledge of the applicants-parties nor within the knowledge of their counsel.
Heard. Perused the material made available on record. In the present case, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed after an inordinate delay of 1845 days and the applicants have failed to make out any sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid restoration application.
In the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others, 2022 (1) DNJ (SC) 346, Hon'ble Apex Court, has observed as under:-
"8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - appellants before the High Court for condonation of huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane. Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - original defendants. Impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well as on facts."
After going through the contents of the application for condonation of delay and in view of judgment rendered in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao (supra), this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the restoration application cannot be (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:03:56 AM) [2023/RJJP/000674] (3 of 3) [CRES-4/2023] said to be bonafide or unintentional. There is no justification in condoning the inordinate delay 1845 days in filing the restoration application.
Accordingly, application bearing Inward No.12/2023 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is dismissed.
Consequent, upon dismissal of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the restoration application is also dismissed being time barred.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J Ashish Kumar /40 (Downloaded on 02/02/2023 at 12:03:56 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)