Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Asha W/O Late Satish vs Satish S/O Shri Jai Singh Ahir on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 40/2021
1. Smt. Asha W/o Late Satish, Resident Of Bodia Kamalpur,
Rewari, Haryana, At Present Ratan Cottatge, Nbc Road,
Hasanpura, Jaipur.
2. Anita @ Meenakshi D/o Late Satish, Resident Of Bodia
Kamalpur, Rewari, Haryana, At Present Ratan Cottatge,
Nbc Road, Hasanpura, Jaipur.
----Appellants-Defendants
Versus
1. Satish S/o Shri Jai Singh Ahir, Resident Of Taj Nagar,
District Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. Mst. Suman Devi W/o Late Surendra, Resident Of
Kamalpur Bodia, Rewari, Haryana. At Present C/o Badal
Singh Tailor Master, Village Bisanpur, Post Bisanpur,
District District Jind, Haryana And Village Kasan, Post
Khas, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. Mst. Saroj D/o Sultan Singh, Resident Of Bodia Kamalpur,
Rewari, Haryana
4. Mst. Sharda D/o Sultan Singh, Resident Of Bodia
Kamalpur, Rewari, Haryana
5. Mst. Savita D/o Sultan Singh, Resident Of Bodia
Kamalpur, Rewari, Haryana
6. Mst Saraswati D/o Sultan Singh, Resident Of Bodia
Kamalpur, Rewari, Haryana
7. Mst. Savitri D/o Sultan Singh, Resident Of Bodia
Kamalpur, Rewari, Haryana
8. Mst. Shakuntala D/o Sultan Singh, Resident Of Bodia
Kamalpur, Rewari, Haryana
9. Satyaveer S/o Jai Singh Ahir, Resident Of Taj Nagar, Post
Khas, District Gurgaon, Haryana
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
(2 of 3) [CRES-40/2021]
26/04/2022
1. The restoration application No.40/2021 has been filed
seeking restoration of first appeal No.322/2009.
2. It appears from the record that first appeal No.322/2009
arising against the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by the
Additional District Judge (FT), Tijara, District Alwar in Civil Suit
No.358/2007, decreeing the civil suit for specific performance,
which has been admitted for hearing and operation of the
impugned judgment and decree was stayed by this Court vide
order dated 29.05.2009. Thereafter, one peremptory order dated
17.01.2018 was passed to file PF and notices for unserved
respondents.
3. Counsel for applicant submits that he has filed a show cause
notices, hence, office has reported that correct notices have not
been filed and accordingly dismissed the first appeal on
08.10.2018 due to non-compliance of peremptory order in letter
and spirit.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that earlier in the
appeal, Advocate P.S. Sirohi was appeared on behalf of appellant,
who later on passed away and application for restoration has been
filed with some delay. He contends that there is no deliberate and
intentional delay in filing restoration application but the same is
just circumstantial.
5. It has also been pointed out that against judgment dated
30.04.2009 one civil first appeal No.433/2009 has been filed by
co-defendants which has also been admitted and pending before
this Court. That apart, against the said judgment passed in
relation to another civil suit No.359/2007, two other first appeals
(3 of 3) [CRES-40/2021]
are also pending. Counsel for applicant submits that applicant-
Asha has filed her affidavit in support of restoration application
and application for condonation of delay in compliance of order
dated 11.03.2022 passed by this Court.
6. Counsel appearing for respondent has opposed the
restoration application.
7. Having considered facts and circumstances of the present
case where other first appeals against impugned judgment are
already pending before this Court for hearing and the present
appeal was also admitted and the fault on the part of counsel for
applicant is merely for filing some incorrect notices, this Court
deems it just and proper to condone the delay in the interest of
justice and to allow the restoration application.
8. Hence, the restoration application is allowed. Civil First
Appeal No.322/2009 is restored to its original number.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN23
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
