Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Prakash Chand Pandya ... on 4 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:34362]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civ. Leave To Appeal No. 22/2025
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Ajmer Divisional Office, Plot No Sp
42, Mtc Industrial Area, Daural Ajmer- 305003, Through Its
Authorized Officer Mr. Lakshya Khandelwal Working As Senior
Manager (Retail Sales), Ajemr Divisional Office, Indain Oil
Corporation Ltd.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Prakash Chand Pandya S/o Late Shri Mohannal Ji Pandya,
Bachchraj Road, Near Rahu Gate, Ladnun, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
2. Chena Ram S/o Devkaran Bidiyasar, Shanker Colony,
Behind Government Hospital, Ward No 5, Ladnun, District
Nagaur.
3. Dharmaveer S/o Chena Ram, Aged About 20 Years,
Shanker Colony Behind Government Hospital Ward No 5
Ladnun District Nagaur
4. Miss Maya D/o Chena Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
Shanker Colony Behind Government Hospital Ward No 5
Ladnun District Nagaur
5. Miss Poonam D/o Saheed Moola Ram, Village Dhimsari
Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur At Present Residing With
Her Grandmother Sarju Devi W/o Late Bhanwara Ram
Manda, R/o Dhingsari, Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 04/08/2025
1. The instant leave to appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the CPC is preferred seeking leave to prefer an (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:42:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:34362] (2 of 4) [CLA-22/2025] appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No.5/2015 wherein the appellant has been imposed the liability to make payment of Rs. 5,60,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- along with 6% interest rate from 05.04.2007 and 19.07.2010 respectively to the respondent No.1 evn though the appellant was not a party to the suit.
2. The leave petitioner was admittedly not a party to the original suit. It is an undisputed fact that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to it. However, the judgment and decree rendered therein specifically direct recovery and coercive action against the present applicant. The leave to appeal petition is reported to have been filed with a delay of 2472 days.
3. I have heard learned counsel Ms. Akshiti Singhvi and considered her submissions to the effect that the applicant had no knowledge of the pendency or the outcome of the said suit. The factum of passing of the decree, adverse to its interest, came to light only upon receipt of notice in the execution proceedings. Immediately thereafter, the company obtained certified copies of the relevant documents, consulted with its counsel, and with due diligence, approached this Court seeking leave to challenge the impugned decree.
3.1 It is a settled proposition of law that the law of limitation governs the parties to litigation, and limitation is to be reckoned from the date the cause of action or knowledge of the adverse order accrues. Since the petitioner was not arrayed as a party to the proceedings and became aware of the judgment and decree (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:42:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:34362] (3 of 4) [CLA-22/2025] only upon initiation of execution, the delay must be reckoned from the date of such knowledge.
3.2 In the present case, it has been brought on record that the knowledge of the impugned decree was received only recently. The petitioner acted promptly and diligently upon gaining such knowledge, and thus, the applicability of limitation should not operate to its detriment.
3.3 The law on condonation of delay is not to be applied pedantically, but with a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. Since the petitioner was neither heard nor made a party to the suit proceedings, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, a liberal view ought to be adopted.
4. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay of 2472 days in filing the leave to appeal petition stands condoned, and the same is directed to be treated as within limitation.
5. Heard on the leave to appeal.
6. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the decree adversely affects the rights of the petitioner who was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to be granted an opportunity to challenge the said judgment and decree. There appear substantial and arguable grounds for preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deedwana, in Civil Original Suit No. 5/2015. (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:42:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34362] (4 of 4) [CLA-22/2025]
7. Accordingly, leave is granted. The memo of appeal tagged with the leave petition be registered as a regular first appeal.
8. List the same for consideration before this Court on 07.08.2025.
(FARJAND ALI),J 248-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:42:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)