Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 3) [CSA-201/2018]
kHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 201/2018
Om Prakash S/o Shri Suryakaran, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Ward No. 2, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector And District
Registrar Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
22/07/2021
This second appeal is directed against judgment dated
27.04.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar
and order dated 06.07.2018 passed by District Judge, Sri
Ganganagar, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant has been
dismissed and in the appeal, application filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act 1963, has been rejected, respectively.
The appellant filed a suit for mandatory and permanent
injunction against the respondent - State in relation to his license
as a deed-writer.
The submissions made in the plaint, were contested by the
respondent - State. The trial court framed the issues on
21.07.2015. However, when the plaintiff did not appear for cross-
examination, his evidence was closed on 16.03.2016 and on
01.04.2016, the defendant closed its evidence, whereafter, the
trial court on 27.04.2016 by its judgment and decree for lack of
(2 of 3) [CSA-201/2018]
any evidence on part of the plaintiff, decided all the issues against
the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal around
June, 2018 against judgment and decree dated 27.04.2016
alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
inter-alia with the submissions that the appellant came to know
about the passing of the impugned decree on 15.05.2018, as the
counsel did not inform the appellant pertaining to the dismissal of
the suit, therefore, the delay be condoned.
The trial court after hearing the counsel for the appellant by
its order dated 06.07.2018, came to the conclusion that the
reason indicated seeking condonation of delay was not just,
proper and sufficient and consequently rejected the application as
well as the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make
submissions that the first appellate court was not justified in
rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
inasmuch as, the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the
suit and as soon as the appellant became aware of the same, he
has filed the appeal and, therefore, the application was liable to be
accepted and the said aspect gives rise to a substantial question
of law.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the appellant and have perused the material available on
record.
A bare perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court as
well as order passed by the appellate court clearly shows that the
conduct of the appellant/plaintiff in prosecuting the suit and filing
the appeal has been lackadaisical, inasmuch as, though the issues
(3 of 3) [CSA-201/2018]
were framed on 21.07.2015, he did not appear for cross-
examination and the evidence was closed on 16.03.2016 and the
trial court dismissed the suit on 27.04.2016. Thereafter, the
appellant did not file the appeal for over two years.
The indication made that the lawyer did not inform is a
convenient rouse, however, the appellant has failed to justify his
own conduct as apparently since the issues were framed on
21.07.2015 till 15.05.2018, when he claims to have become
aware of passing of the decree, he did not meet the counsel as
neither the evidence was led and for two years, the appeal was
not filed.
In those circumstances, the first appellate court was justified
in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The above facts do not give rise to any substantial question
of law. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is,
therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
122-pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
